SJVDP LIBRARY
EFFICACY OF EVAPORATION PONDS FOR
DISPOSAL OF SALINE DRAINAGE WATERS
FINAL REPORT
September 1990
Prepared under contract for the Federal-State
San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program through the
Department of Water Resources
EFFICACY OF EVAPORATION PONDS FOR
DISPOSAL OF SALINE DRAINAGE WATERS
FINAL REPORT
September 1990
Prepared under contract for the Federal-State
San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program through the
Department of Water Resources
Il
This report represents the results of a study conducted for
the Federal-State Interagency San Joaquin Valley Drainage
Program. The purpose of the report is to provide the Drainage
Program agencies with information for consideration in
developing alternatives for agricultural drainage water
management. Publication of any findings or recommendations
in this report should not be construed as representing the
concurrence of the Program agencies. Also, mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute agency
endorsement or recommendation.
The San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program was established in mid- 1984 as a cooperative
effort of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Geological Survey,
California Department of Fish and Game, and California Department of Water Resources. The
purposes of the Program are to investigate the problems associated with the drainage of irrigated
agricultural lands in the San Joaquin Valley and to formulate, evaluate and recommend
alternatives for the immediate and long-term management of those problems. Consistent with
these purposes. Program objectives address the following key areas: (1) Public Health, (2)
surface and ground water resources, (3) agricultural productivity, and (4) fish and wildlife
resources.
Inquiries concerning the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program may be directed to :
San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2143
Sacramento, California 95825-1898
• FINAL REPORT
EFFICACY OF EVAPORATION PONDS FOR DISPOSAL OF
SALINE DRAINAGE WATERS
Prepared for the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2143
Sacramento, California 95825-1898
Under contract for the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation
through Department of Water Resources Contract No. B-56769
by
Kenneth K. Tanji and Randy A. Dahlgren
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources
University of California, Davis
Davis, California 95616
and assisted by research staff:
Ann Quek, Gregory Smith, Colin Ong, Fawzi Karajeh,
Douglas Pet«rs, Jeffrey Yoshimoto, Kazuhiko Otani
and Mitchell Herbel
September 1990
fJR^^
^«Sl^c^"
Table of Contents
Page
SECTION 1 List of Figures 1-6
List of Tables 1-8
List of Tables in Appendix 1-9
Executive Summary
Overview 110
Pond Waters - Salinity and Major Solutes 1.10
Pond Waters - Trace Elements 1.10
Diurnal Monitoring - Evaporation Rates 1.11
Diurnal Monitoring - Pond Waters 112
Pond Mineralogy and Trace Elements 1.12
Magnitude of Salt Load 113
Best Design and Management Practices 114
Introduction
Statement of the Problem 1.15
Scope of the Report 116
SECTION 2 Wnter Qualify fc Chpmistr%' of Pnnd Waters
Introduction 2.1
Sampling and Measurement Procedures
Pond Water Sampling 2. 1
Chemical Analysis 2.1
Description of Field-Measured and Chemical Analysis Data
Introduction 2.2
Field Measured Data 2.2
Chemical-Analysis Data
Major Solutes 2.2
Trace Elements 2.2
Conclusions 2.4
SECTION 3 Diurnal Monitoring of Ponds
Introduction
Methodology
Water Chemistry Parameters
Evaporation Parameters
Observations
Pond Waters
Above Pond
CIMIS Weather Data
Floating Evaporation Pan Data
Potential use of CIMIS ET_, as a Predictor of
Evaporation Rate from Evaporation Ponds
SECTION 4 Application of Evanoratinn Rate Models
Introduction
Estimation of Evaporation Rates
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.18
3.18
4.1
4.1
page 1.4
SECTION 5 Mi"P'"a^o£^ nf Prprinitates
Introduction
Analytical Procedure
Pond Mineralog>'
A Note Concerning Mineralogic Nomenclature
SECTION 6 Trnre Element Accumiilation in Pond Waters
Introduction
Evapoconcentration
ECF Formulae
Verification Example for Time-Dependent ECF Formulae
Extended Application ofTDECF
Results
Conclusions
SECTION 7 Trnrp Elempnf.; Associat/>d v,nth Evanorites
Introduction
Methodology
Results
SECTION 8 Mapnitude of Salt Load
Introduction
Unit Values
Magnitudes Discharged into Ponds
Accumulation in Ponds
SECTION 9 Remmmended Desi^ and Rp^^t ManflFement Practices
Sustaining Optimal Pond Evaporation
Factors Which Affect the Evaporation Rate
Net Radiation
Salinity
Ormat Process
Color of Solution
Salt Precipitation
Sadan Proposal
Best Design to Sustain Evaporation Rate and Precipitation
Size
Shape
Depth
Cells
Embankment
Lining and Interceptor Drain
Best Management Options
Constraints
SECTION 10 References
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.3
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.4
7.1
7.1
7.1
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.3
9.3
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.5
10.1
SECTION 11
Appendices
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Evaporation Pond Diurnal Monitoring Data
CIMIS Weather Data from Stations Near To
Evaporation Ponds
11.1
11.11
page 1.5
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Areas of Shallow Groundwater
Figure 2.1 Ternary diagrams of the relative concentrations of major
cations and anions in evaporation pond waters (meq/1 basis).
Figure 3.1 Weather monitoring equipment set-up.
Figure 3.2 March Diurnal Study: Pryse (Water Sample Analysis).
Figure 3.3 March Diurnal Study: Barbizon (Water Sample Analysis).
Figure 3.4 March Diurnal Study: Peck 3 NW (Water Sample Analysis).
Figure 3.5 March Diurnal Study: Peck 5 SW (Water Sample Analysis).
Figure 3.6 March Diurnal Study: Pryse (Weather Monitoring).
Figure 3.7 March Diurnal Study: Peck (Weather Monitoring).
Figure 3.8 March Diurnal Study: Barbizon (Weather Monitoring).
Figure 3.9 August Diurnal Study: Pryse (Water Sample Analysis).
Figure 3.10 August Diurnal Study: Barbizon (Water Sample Analysis).
Figure 3.11 August Diurnal Study: Peck 1 NW (Water Sample Analysis).
Figure 3.12 August Diurnal Study: Peck BS (Water Sample Analysis).
Figure 3.13 August Diurnal Study: Peck SP (Water Sample Analysis).
Figure 3.14 August Diurnal Study: Pryse (Weather Monitoring).
Figure 3.15 August Diurnal Study: Barbizon (Weather Monitoring).
Figure 3.16 August Diurnal Study: Peck (N^'eather Monitoring).
Figure 3.17 Daily evaporation in relation to the salinity level in Peck
floating evaporation pans and ET^ during the given dates in
September, 1989.
Figure 3.18 Trend of daily evaporation in relation to the salinity level in
Peck floating evaporation pans and ET^ for the given dates in
September, 1989.
Figure 3.19 Trend of daily evaporation in relation to the salinity level in
Peck evaporation floating evaporation pans and ET^ for the
period Sept. 1 through Sept. 9, 1989.
Figure 3.20 Trend of daily evaporation in relation to the salinity level in
Peck floating evaporation pans and ET^ for the period Sept. 1
through Sept. 9, 1989.
Figure 3.21 Cumulative evaporation in relation to the salinity level in
Peck floating evaporation pans and ET^ for the period Sept. 1
through Sept. 9, 1989.
Figure 3.22 Effect of air temperature on hourly ET^ and average
evaporation rates from Peck floating evaporation pans (EC =
14 dS/m) for the period August 19-20, 1989.
Figure 3.23 Effect of solar radiation on hourly ET^ and average
evaporation rates from Peck floating evaporation pans (EC =
14 dS/m) for the period August 19-20, 1989.
Figure 3.24 Effect of Relative Humidity on hourly ET__ and average
evaporation rates from Peck floating evaporation pans (EC =
14 dS/m) for the period August 19-20, 1989.
Figure 3.25 Effect of wind speed on hourly ET^ sind average evaporation
rates from Peck floating evaporation pans (EC = 14 dS/m) for
the period August 19- 20, 1989.
Figure 3.26 Effect of vapor pressure on hourly ET^^ and average
evaporation rates from Peck floating evaporation pans (EC =
14 dS/m) for the period August 19- 20, 1989.
Figure 3.27 AverEige daily evaporation from 14 dS/m Peck floating
evaporation pans for four months in 1989.
Figure 3.28 Regression of ET correction factor on EC of drainage water.
page 1.6
Figures 3.29 CIMIS ET^, and measured and calculated daily evaporation
from Peck floating evaporation pans with different sahnities
using the ET^ correction factor.
Figures 3.30 Cumulative CIMIS ET„, and measured and calculated daily
evaporation from Peck floating evaporation pans with
different salinities using the ET^ correction factor.
Figure 4.1 Wind coefficient in relation to wind speed.
Figure 4.2 Calculated evaporation rate from pure water as well as from
saline water (EC =14 dS/m) compared to the measured rate
from the saline floating evaporation pan at Peck pond, for the
period August 19-20, 1989.
Figure 4.3 Calculated evaporation rate from pure water as well as from
saline water (EC =14 dS/m) compared to the measured rate
from the saline floating pan at Peck pond, for the period
August 19-20, 1989 (different data comparison).
Figure 4.4 Calculated evaporation rate from pure water as well as from
saline water (EC =14 dS/m) compared to the measured rate
from the saline floating pan at Peck pond, for the period
August 19-20, 1989 (partially excluded data).
Figure 4.5 Evaporation in relation to vapor pressure difference between
air and water surface at a wind speed of 2 miles per hour
(Moore and Runkles, 1968).
Figure 4.6 Evaporation in relation to vapor pressure difference between
air and water surface at a wind speed of 6 miles per hour
(Moore and Runkles, 1968).
Figure 4.7 Relative evaporation rate [Evaporation from a saline solution
to that of evaporation from distilled water (E/E^)] in relation
to wind speed and salt concentration at an air temperature of
76°F and 60% relative humidity (Moore and Runkles, 1968).
Figure 4.8 Relative evaporation rate [Evaporation from a saline solution
to that of evaporation from distilled water (EVE^)] in relation
to wind speed and salt concentration at an air temperature of
76°F and 80% relative humidity (Moore and Runkles, 1968).
Figure 4.9 Effect of specific gravity on evaporation of brine (L. J. Turk,
1970).
Figure 6.1. Formulae for calculating predicted concentrations during
evapoconcentration.
Figure 6.2. Conditions necessary for Time-Dependent ECF calculations.
Figure 6.3. Results of TD-ECF Calculation for Pryse Cell 2 SE using
multiple final dates.
Figure 6.4 Predicted and observed concentrations of arsenic and
selenium for (from leff to right) Barbizon, Peck and Pryse
evaporation ponds. The TDECF method is used.
Figure 6.5 Predicted and observed concentrations of boron and
molybdenum for (from left to right) Barbizon, Peck and Pryse
evaporation ponds. The TDECF method is used.
Figure 6.6 Predicted and observed concentrations of arsenic, selenium,
boron and molybdenum for Peck evaporation pond. The
MCECF method is used.
Figure 7.1 Trace elements associated with evaporites from evaporation
ponds.
page 1.7
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Pond Water Sample On-Site Measurement Instrumentation.
Table 2.2 Distribution of Trace Elements in the San Joaquin Valley.
Table 2.2 Field-Measured Data for Seasonal Characterization of Peck
Evaporation Waters.
Table 2.3 Field-Measured Date for Seasonal Characterization of Peck
Evaporation Waters.
Table 2.4 Field-Measured Date for Seasonal Characterization of Peck
Evaporation Waters.
Table 2.5 Field-Measured Date for Seasonal Characterization of Pryse
Evaporation Waters.
Table 2.6 Field-Measured Date for Seasonal Characterization of
Barbizon Evaporation Waters.
Table 2.7 Results of Laboratory Chemical Analysis of Peck Evaporation
Pond Waters.
Table 2.8 Results of Laboratory Chemical Analysis of Peck Evaporation
Pond Waters.
Table 2.9 Results of Laboratory Chemical Analysis of Peck Evaporation
Pond Waters.
Table 2.10 Results of Laboratory Chemical Analysis of Pryse
Evaporation Pond Waters.
Table 2.11 Results of Laboratory Chemical Analysis of Barbizon
Evaporation Pond Waters.
Table 2.12 Results of Laboratory Chemical Analysis of Barbizon
Evaporation Pond Waters.
Table 3.1 Instruments used for measuring Pond Water Chemical
Parameters in Diurnal Study.
Table 3.2 Daily evaporation rate from the floating evaporation pans at
Peck pond
Table 3.3 Cumulative and hourly evaporation from Peck floating pans
(EC = 14 dS/m) for August 18-29, 1989.
Table 4.1 Calculated evaporation rate from pure water and saline water
(EC = 14 dS/m) using CIMIS weather date and measured
evaporation rate from saline floating pans at Peck
evaporation pond for the 24 hour period on August 19-20,
1989.
Table 5.1 Evaporite Minerals Identified at Barbizon, Peck and Pryse
Evaporation Ponds Between August 1986 and May 1988.
Table 9.1 Evaporation rate factors and manageability.
page 1.8
List of Tables in Appendix
Table A. 1
Table A.2
Table A.3
Table A.4
Table A.5
Table A.6
Table A. 7
Table A.8
Table A.9
Table A. 10
Table A. 11
Table A. 12
Table B.l
Table B.2
Table B.3
Table B.4
Table B.5
Table B.6
Weather Conditions During First Diurnal Study: Pryse Pond.
Pond Water Conditions During First Diurnal Study: Pryse Pond.
Weather Conditions During First Diurnal Study: Peck Pond.
Pond Water Conditions During First Diurnal Study: Peck Pond.
Weather Conditions During First Diurnal Study: Barbizon Pond.
Pond Water Conditions During First Diurnal Study: Barbizon Pond.
Weather Conditions During Second Diurnal Study: Pryse Pond.
Pond Water Conditions During Second Diurnal Study: Pryse Pond.
Weather Conditions During Second Diurnal Study: Peck Pond.
Pond Water Conditions During Second Diurnal Study: Peck Pond.
Weather Conditions During Second Diurnal Study: Barbizon Pond.
Pond Water Conditions During Second Diurnal Study: Barbizon
Pond.
Houriy CIMIS weather data for McFarland station near to Pryse
pond for March 26-27, 1989.
Hourly CIMIS weather data for Stratford station near to Barbizon
pond for the period March 27-28, 1989.
Hourly CIMIS weather data for Mendota/Muriettastation near to
Peck pond for the period March 29-30, 1989.
Hourly CIMIS weather data for McFarland station near to Pryse
pond for the period August 15-16, 1989.
Houriy CIMIS weather data for Stratford station near to Barbizon
pond for the period August 17-18, 1989.
Hourly CIMIS weather data for Mendota/Murrietta station near to
Peck pond for the period August 19-20, 1989.
page 1.9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
This report contains information and data on site-specific field and laboratory studies on
the physical and chemical efficacy of evaporation ponds. Data were collected from the Pryse,
Peck and Barbizon evaporation pond facilities. The main goal of disposing saline tile drainage
effluents into ponds is the evaporation of the impounded waters. A number of climatic, physical
and chemical factors affect evaporation rates. The nature of salts (evaporites) deposited in ponds
are strongly influenced by the chemical composition of the tile drainage effluent. The extent of
evaporite precipitation is influenced by the degree of evapoconcentration of the impounded
waters. Of particular concern is the accumulation of toxic trace elements in the pond facilities.
The design and operational management of the ponds may influence evaporation rates.
The following presents highlights on the physicochemical efficacy of agricultural evapo-
ration ponds. Some of the data were collected over a three-year period (1986-89), while others
were collected only in 1989.
▲ Pond Waters - Salinity and Major Solutes
• The average electrical conductivity (EC) of tile drainage discharged into Pryse pond was
29.7 dS/m (mmhos/cm), Peck pond, 10.4 dS/m, and Barbizon pond, 8.4 dS/m.
• The ECs in Cells 1 and 2 in Pryse pond ranged from a minimum of 25.6 to a maximum
of 175 dS/m. On a meq per liter basis, waters in Pryse pond are classified as NaCl-Na^SO^
type.
• The ECs in Cell 1 through Cell 6 in Peck pond ranged from a minimum of 8.3 to a
maximum of 109 dS/m. Waters in Peck pond are Na^SO^ type.
• The ECs in Cells A, B and C, separated by wind-break berms, in Barbizon pond ranged
from a minimum of 8.8 to a maximum of 48.3 dS/m. Waters in Barbizon pond are the
NajSO,-NaCl type.
▲ Pond Waters • Trace Elements
• The concentration of trace elements reported herein is the total dissolved concentration
in ng per liter (ppb) for arsenic (As), molybdenum (Mo) and selenium (Se) and mg per liter
(ppm) for boron (B).
• The average influent concentration of B was 9.3 ppm in Pryse pond, 7. 1 ppm in Peck pond
and 3.5 ppm in Barbizon pond. The average As and Mo data reported herein are
consistently greater than those reported by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
• Using chloride (CD as a nonreactive parameter to estimate the degree of evapoconcen-
tration in ponds (ECF), the measured concentration of B in all ponds increased in direct
proportion to CI.
page 1.10
The average influent concentration of Se was 10 ppb in Pry se pond, 570 ppb in Peck pond,
and less than 10 ppb in Barbizon. Using the Cl-based ECF, the measured concentration
of Se in pond cells was less than that predicted by ECF. This implies that some of the
Se was lost from the pond water by removal mechanisms such as volatilization,
adsorption or reduction to elemental Se.
The average influent concentration of As was 1.080 ppb in Pryse pond , 620 ppb in Peck
pond, and 1,320 ppb in Barbizon pond (Note previous comment). Based on ECF
calculations, the measured concentration of As in pond cells was significantly less than
CI and had largest extent of immobilization among the trace elements. The removal
mechanisms are similar to those identified for Se, and As tends not to accumulate in the
water column.
The average influent concentration of Mo was 2,790 ppb in Pryse pond, 640 ppb in Peck
pond, and 890 ppb in Barbizon pond (Note previous comment). Based on ECF calculaltions,
the degree of accumulation of Mo was intermediate between As and Se in most ponds.
The above observations indicate that the reactivity of trace elements in pond facilities
are in the order of As > Se ^ Mo with B accumulating in direct proportion to CI, an
assumed nonreactive constituent.
▲ Diurnal Monitoring - Evaporation Rates
• The Peck, Pryse and Barbizon ponds were extensively monitored over 24-hour periods
in March and August 1989 to evaluate evaporation rates with above-the-pond weather
data as well as within-the-pond physicochemical changes.
Diurnal monitoring of weather data was obtained with a portable Campbell Scientific
weather station every half hour during a 24-hour period. Parameters measured were
d speed, wind direction, gross solar radiation, relative humidity and air temperature.
•
win
Solar radiation generally peaked before noon in the spring (March) and just before noon
in the summer (August) monitorings. Relative humidity tended to be low during the day
and increased significantly at night. The air temperature peaked at about noon and
reached a minimum around midnight. The direction of wind was more or less scattered
from all directions at Pryse and Barbizon ponds and predominantly from the northeast
at Peck pond. Wind speeds averaged between 0.4 to 0.6 meters per second.
At the Peck pond facility, two floating Class A evaporation pans were installed
containing water within EC of 14 dS/m, and hourly evaporation rates were monitored
over a 47-hour period from August 18-20, 1989. Evaporation during the nighttime
contributed significantly to total evaporation. The average cumulative evaporation was
14.6 mm.
In addition at Peck pond, daily evaporation rates were measured with three floating
evaporation pans containing waters of ECs ranging from 14 to 90 dS/m in the months of
August, September and November, 1989. The EC of water in the pans were increased
to correspond to increasing EC in the pond cells over this period. Evaporation rates
generally decreased as salinity increased. For example, on September 2, 1989 the daily
evaporation rate was 7.7. 6.6, and 6.3 mm per day, respectively, for pans containing
waters of EC 14, 20 and 47 dS/m. Moreover, daily evaporation rate wnth EC 14 db/m
water was 8.0, 6.2. 4.7, and 2.3 mm per day. respectively, for the months of August
through November, 1989.
page 1.11
• Cumulative evaporation measurements from Peck pond were correlated to calculated
reference evapotranspiration (ET ) from a nearby CIMIS weather station in Mumeta
Farms. An ET^ correction factor (Y) was determined to correlate cumulative pond water
evaporation rates (E) at different salinities up to EC of 61 dS/m, i.e.,
Y = 1.3234 - 0.0066 EC (dS/m)
E= (ET.)(Y)
• The relations between evaporation rate and dependent variables such as wind speed,
vapor pressure differences between air and water surfaces, salinity and specific gravity
are presented.
• Dal ton's model was used to calculate evaporation rates from pure water and saline
waters (EC = 14 dS/m) and these were compared to measured data. Although the
calculated results deviated in some cases substantially at hourly intervals, improved
trends were obtained by smoothing over longer elapsed time intervals.
Diurnal Monitoring • Pond Waters
• At the same time the above-the-pond weather data was being monitored at Peck, Pryse
and Barbizon ponds, pond waters were monitored at 2-hour intervals for water tempera-
ture, density, EC, pH, DO (Dissolved Oxygen) and Eh (redox potential).
• Cyclical variations in several water quality parameters were observed. For instance
variations in DO are directly related to the activity of phytoplankton and water
temperature. Fluctuations in water temperature are dampened and lagged slightly
behind air temperature.
. In contrast, diurnal changes in EC, density, pH and Eh were not readily distinguishable.
Pond Mineralog>- and Trace Elements
• Minerals (evaporites) precipitated along the shorelines, in drying pond bottoms, and
within the brine water column were sampled from 1987-1988.
•
The types of evaporites formed in the water column were strongly influenced by the
initial chemistry of the drainage influent water and degree of evapoconcentration. The
formation of such evaporites could be predicted by C-Salt, a brine chemistry model
previously reported in the Interim Report.
In contrast, evaporites formed along shorelines are subjected to extreme ranges of
wetting and drying and tended to reHect larger mineral assemblages as saline waters are
subjected to near air dryness.
In the Peck. Pryse and Barbizon ponds, 1 borate, 3 chloride. 10 carbonate, and 19
different sulfate minerals were identified. These evaporites ranged from hydrated and
nonhydrated species, e.g., gypsum (CaS0/2H,0) and anhydrite (CaSO^, doub e sa s,
e E bloedite(Na,SO .MgSO«5Hp)andburkeite(Na,C03'2Na,SO;.andtripe salts,
eg'p ?yhaHte(^SO •2Cas6/M^O/2Hp)andtych.te(2Na,C03.2
p€ige 1.12
The following evaporites were found in all three ponds: thenardite (NajSO^), polyhalite,
tychite, halite (NaCl), nahcolite (NaHC03), and nesquehonite (MgC0^'3Hfi).
Since the influent waters to ponds are characterized as Na^SO^, NaCl-Na^SO^ or Na^SO^-
NaCl type waters, the predominant evaporites formed are thenardit* and halite. In
addition, the presence of calcium and carbonates in these waters also produce evaporites
such as gypsum and calcite (CaCOj) in copious amounts.
Seven evaporite samples were obtained from Peck pond and subjected to mineral
identification and chemical analyses of redissolved salts. These samples were domi-
nated by thenardite (Na^SO^) with morphologies ranging from fine-grained minerals
found along shorelines to large crystals and slabs found in drying to dried pond bottoms.
A representative water sample was also collected and chemically analyzed.
The evaporite samples were dissolved in distilled deionized water (1 gram evaporite in
100 ml water) and analyzed for several trace elements (Se, As, B, Mo), major solutes (SO^,
CI, Na, Ca, Mg, K), and DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon).
Based on the above chemical analyses the association of trace elements in the evaporites
were ascertained. The molar ratio of 80^ to a given trace element in the evaporite was
compared to the ratio of SO^ to a given trace element in the pond water. The results show
that B, Se, and As were depleted in the evaporite (solid phase) as compared to the pond
water (solution phase) while Mo was enriched in the evaporite.
Additional studies are needed in other pond facilities to ascertain this relationship as
well as the mechanisms oftrace element adsorption to evaporites and occlusion (trapped)
and co-precipitation oftrace elements in evaporites.
▲ Magnitude of Salt Load
• An overall assessment was made on the 27 evaporation ponds with a total surface area
of 7,070 acres that annually receive 31,900 ac-ft of subsurface drainage from about
56,500 acres of tile-drained fields containing 810,000 tons of salts (TDS).
• The above data were transformed into unit values. For example,
o Each acre of tile-drained field required 0.125 ac of pond.
O About 0.6 ac-ft/ac-yr of tile-drained effluents were collected and disposed
into ponds.
O About 4.5 ft/yr of tile effluents were disposed into ponds.
O The concentration of TDS in tile effluents obtained from the field was
about 14.3 tons/ac-yr.
O The concentration of TDS in tile effluents disposed into ponds was about
25.4 ton&/ac-fl.
O The mass of TDS disposed in ponds was about 115 ton&'ac-yr.
• The 31,900 ac-fVyr of tile effluents discharged into ponds is nearly twice that discharged
from drains in the Grasslands Subarea to the San Joaquin River.
pfige 1.13
The 810,000 tons/yr of TDS disposed in ponds is about one-fourth of the estimated 3.1
million tons/yr of salt accumulation in the San Joaquin Valley's west side. CH2M HILL's
estimate is 743,800 tons/yr.
Assuming the density of evaporites as 2.66 g/cm' (thenardite) the annual volume of salts
accumulating in the ponds is about 164,500 cubic yds or an average deposition thickness
of0.17in/yr.
Assuming the density of evaporites as 1.28 g/cm^ (not well-developed crystalline forms),
about 342,000 cubic yds of salt are accumulating in the ponds annually or an average
deposition thickness of 0.36 in/yr.
The above range of estimates on annual salt deposition in ponds indicate huge amounts
available for possible salt harvesting or for disposal. However, the presence of toxic
elements in the salt deposits may constrain how these salts are ultimately disposed.
▲ Best Design and Management Practices
• The factors and conditions sustaining evaporation and salt deposition rates were
evaluated. Many of these factors are not readily manageable (changeable) while a few
may be manageable such as regulating salinity levels or increasing absorbed net solar
radiation using a dye, 2-Naphthol Green.
• Evaporation rate of water is strongly affected by salinity of the pond water. Typically,
salinity in ponds are lowest in the winter and spring, and highest in the summer and fall.
• In addition to pond water salinity, formation of salt crusts on the surface of water bodies
severely restricts evaporation rates.
• Use of cells in pond facilities with gates to serially transfer water of varying salinities
may sustain evaporation rates.
• Pond water depth appears not to be a major factor influencing evaporation rates.
• To minimize seepage of pond water into underlying ground water basins and adjacent
lands, perimeter interceptor drains are recommended. If seepage needs to be further
controlled, collector drains could be installed beneath the ponds.
• Other methods of reducing seepage losses are the deposition of algal mats or burial of
straw layers in pond bottoms.
• The ORMAT process is being advanced to enhance evaporation rates. Due to proprietary
constraints, the initial capital costs and effectiveness are not readily available or known.
• The best management options and design features to sustain evaporation and salt
precipitation rates may be overridden by considerations to make ponds safer to wildlife
by making the ponds less attractive and reducing contaminant hazards.
page 1.14
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Agricultural drainage and associated salinity and toxic element problems affect areas of
the San Joaquin Valley, some moderately and others severely. The widely publicized selenium
toxicity problems at Kesterson Reservoir heightened public awareness of this problem.
Backlund and Hoppes (1984) indicate that 1.5 million acres (0.6 million hectares), equal
to 27%, of the 5.6 million acres (2.3 million hectares) of irrigated lands in the San Joaquin Valley
are affected by shallow ground water to within five feet of the land surface and that 2.3 milHon
acres (0.9 million hectares), or 41%, are affected by water quality problems, including salinity,
pesticide residues, nitrates and toxic elements.
Figure 1.1 (San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program (SJVDP), 1989) delineates areas in
the west side of the San Joaquin Valley having water table depths from 0 to 5 feet and from five
to 20 feet. Subsurface drainage in these areas began in the 1950's. The Northern (least water
quality impact) and Grassland Subareas have opportunities to discharge their irrigation return
flows into the middle reaches of the San Joaquin River. As water quality objectives for the river
grow more stringent, drainage from the two northernmost subareas will need to be increasingly
reduced.
In contrast, the Westlands Subarea has no surface drainage outlet. Drainage waters are
accumulating in the vadose region. The Tulare and Kern Subareas are located in a hydrologically
closed basin with limited opportunities to discharge drainage into the lake beds. The SJVDP
(1989) has enumerated numerous management options for drainage and drainage-related
problems, e.g., selenium and salts. A combination of viable in-valley drainage management
options is being sought to determine the best management practices (BMP). One of the most
effective BMPs is source control with improved water management practices. But, even with
source control BMPs, a residual of drainage waters containing elevated concentration levels of
TDS and toxic elements will still need to be treated, or disposed, or both. This drainage problem
is most critical in the Westlands, Tulare and Kern Subareas.
In the 1970's, the Tulare Lake Drainage District constructed two evaporation pond
facilities and Carmel Ranch one pond with a total surface area of over 3,000 acres (1200 hectares)
to dispose of over 15,000 ac-ft/yr (18.5 million m') of drainage collected from over 27,000 acres
(66,700 hectares) of tile-drained fields (Department of Water Resources (DWR), 1988). Between
1981 and 1985, 24 more evaporation ponds were constructed. Most are located in the Tulare and
Kern Subareas with several as far north as in the Grassland Subarea.
Earlier, concern focused on potential seepage of hypersaline waters from ponds into
usable ground waters and adjacent lands. Since the Kesterson Reservoir crisis, the emphasis has
shifted toward potential bioaccumulation of selenium and other constituents in the aquatic food
chain and toxicity to birds attracted to the ponds. Several ponds have either exceeded the soluble
thresholdlimitconcentration of 1,000 |ig/L selenium or begun toexhibittoxicity problems similar
to those at the Kesterson Reservoir.
Aside from the highly visible concerns of bioaccumulation and hydrogeology, the
following management-oriented questions need to be addressed to fully evaluate the efficacy of
evaporation ponds:
• How long can ponds effectively operate? What variables and conditions would Hmit their
operation?
• At what levels of salinity do evaporites begin to precipitate'' What kind of salts, how much
and from where? How does the initial inflow chemistry influence evaporite formation?
• What parameters affect evaporation rates of pond water? How do salinity, wind speed,
wave action, temperature, turbidity, and thin surface salt crusts influence evaporation
rates?
piige 1.15
• What changes are expected to occur in the mineralogy and chemistry of pond wasters
subjected to cychc evaporative salinization (drying) and dilution-dissolution (wetting) of
evaporites?
• Which trace elements might co-precipitate with evaporites? Will salt deposits containing
toxic trace elements need to be ultimately disposed in Class I hazardous dump sites?
• What pond design and management practices will best sustain evaporation rates and
precipitate salts?
Scope of Report
This report addresses physical and chemical characteristics and factors in evaporation
ponds, with emphasis on seasonal pond water chemistry, water evaporation and salt accumula-
tion, but does not address biological aspects. The previous interim report (Tanji and Grismer,
1989) contained a literature review and synthesis on these topics.
Oancral study ATM Boundary
Prlnd^l Slutfy Ar«a Boundary
_ — — Subaraa Boundarlaa
-M^^ StraATTW and Canala
AtBSFlELD
Sourca:
S«n Joaquin V»ll»y Drainage Program
Figure 1.1 Areas of Shallow Groundwater
page 1.16
SECTION 2
WATER QUALITY & CHEMISTRY OF POND WATERS
Introduction
This section describes the sampling methods and analysis procedures for the major
solutes, and the trace elements including molybdenum, arsenic, boron and selenium. Trends in
solute and trace element concentrations in the ponds are also described.
Sampling and Measurement Procedures
Pond Water Sampling
Two sites at each pond were sampled using one liter Nalgene polypropylene bottles.
Water samples were taken 2-3 meters in from the shoreline of each pond at representative
corners. One water sample was immediately analyzed on-site for pH, temperature, DO, Eh,
alkalinity', EC, and density (Table 2.1). The second 1-liter sample was brought to the University
of California West Side Field Station near Five Points and filtered. The samples were first
vacuum filtered through No. 2 Whatman filter paper to eliminate the large particles. Solutions
were then pumped through a 6" diameter, 0.45nm membrane filter using a peristaltic pump
(Geotech Environmental Equipment Inc). The final filtering was through a Gelman 0.45 (im
membrane filter (Millipore filter holder) using a suction fiask. About 400 to 500 mL of the
resulting filtrate was acidified with nitric acid to - pH 2.0 for trace element analysis. The
remaining unacidified filtered sample was kept cold under ice and reserved for anion and carbon
analysis.
Table 2.1 Pond Water Sample On-Site Measurement Instrumentation
Parameter Equipment
O Electrical Conductivity (EC) YSI Model 32 Conductance Meter with YSI 3417 dip-
type plastic cell and YSI 701 Temperature Probe.
O pH, temperature (Centigrade) Markson Model 90 pH/temperature meter with Markson
Duramark or Tefmark II pH electrode, YSI 701
temperature probe.
O Redox potential (Eh) Markson Model 90 pH/Temperature Meter, Markson
redox combination platinum electrode, YSI 701
temperature probe.
O Dissolved oxygen (DO) YSI Model 5 IB, YSI Oxygen/Temperature probe.
O Alkalinity Acid titration to pH 4.5 with Markson pH meter and pH
electrode, YSI 701 temperature probe.
O Density Fisher Specific Gravity Hydrometer, range 1.000-1.225
and cylinder.
Chemical Analysis
The Applied Research Laboratories (ARL) Model 3510 Inductively Coupled Plasma
Spectrophotometer (ICPS) instrument was used for sodium (Na), potassium (K), calcium (Ca),
magnesium (Mg), arsenic (As), molybdenum (Mo) and boron (B) determination. For ICPS
analysis, the standards (Inorganic Ventures, Toms River, New Jersey), in various concentra-
tions, were acidified, and 5 ppm scandium (Sc) and 10 ppm bismuth (Bi) added as internal
standards. Internal standards are also added to all acidified samples to be analyzed by ICPS.
A standard comparable to the sample concentration was analyzed after every six samples to
check for recovery. Intermittently, a dilute sample and a previously analyzed sample were
inserted as samples to check reproducibility.
'Alkalinity is presented in this report in terms of mg/l CaCO^
page 2.1
• Sulfate (SO^) and chloride (CI) were analyzed using a Shimadzu HPLC (LC-6A pump, C-
R3A Chromatopac processor, SCL-6A Controller); Ippm Limit of Quantitation (LOQ).
• Nitrate (NOj) was determined using a Shimadzu HPLC (LC-6A pump, SPD-6AV UVA^is
Detector, SCL-6A Controller); 20 ppb LOQ.
• Carbon was analyzed using a Dohrmann DC-80 Carbon Analyzer; Total Dissolved Carbon
(TDC), 1 ppm LOQ.
• Selenium was quantified using a Technicon BD-40 Heating Block and Control Unit
digester, with Technicon auto-analyzer sampling pump fitted with a glass sampling
probe, proportioningpump, regulated water bath, and recorder, and a Turner Flourimeter
Model ni with a continuous flow cuvette; Se, 1 ppb LOQ.
Description of Field-Measured and Chemical Analysis Data
Introduction
A summary of results from chemical analyses of the evaporation pond water and inflow
samples are shown in Tables 2.3 to 2. 12. The tables include data for inflow waters as well as the
average values from each pair of sampling sites taken from each cell. In addition, the minimum,
maximum and average values for each cell are presented. Particular emphasis in this discussion
will be placed on the important trends and possible implications.
Field-Measured Data
The results of on-site analyses at Peck, Pryse and Barbizon evaporation ponds are shown
in Tables 2.3 to 2.6. Only salinity, as reflected by the EC, fluctuated significantly with season.
EC values of pond waters overall ranged from 8.78 dS/m at Barbizon pond to 174 dS/m
at Pryse pond. Inflow waters were generally lower in salinity rangingfrom 7.73 dS/m at Barbizon
pond to 33.5 dS/m at Pryse pond. The conductivity was typically lowest during the Winter
sampling time, while maximum values have typically been found during the Summer or Fall
seasons. Lower ECs may be due to the dilution through addition of new drainage water. The pH
of inflow waters were between 7 and 8, while the pH of the pond waters were up to 2 pH units
above that of the inflow. The Eh measurements indicate that with only a few exceptions, the
waters were weakly oxidizing. Changes in Eh do not appear to be closely linked to changes in
dissolved oxygen concentration indicating perhaps that the dominant redox couple does not
involve oxygen as the electron donor/receptor which facilitates the electron transfer necessary
for redox reactions. There were some differences between the alkalinity of inflow and pond
waters which suggests, in some cases, that there was a re-equilibration between atmospheric
COj and soluble carbonate minerals when the water was released from the confines of the tile
drain system into the free surface water body.
Chemical Analysis Data
• Major Solutes
The major solutes include Na% Ca^*, Mg=-, K-, HCO,", CI", SO/ and NO3-. The ternary
diagrams in Figure 2. 1 show the dominance of the SO^^ anion and Na* cation in inflow and pond
waters. Significant proportions of CI are also found at Barbizon and Pryse ponds. Only rela-
tively low concentrations of COj^ were found.
Fluctuations in the concentration of the major solutes may be matched with those of EC
and among themselves which indicates that these changes over time are functions of the degree
of evapoconcentration as well as changes in the composition of inflow waters.
In terms of average values, the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations increase
in the order Peck<Barbizon<Pryse. It may be possible that high values are linked to a biological
factor including macrophyte, algal, and microbial activities.
• Trace Elements
The trace elements considered in this study include As, B, Mo and Se. The concentrations
reported are total dissolved values for a particular element. It is important to remember that
these elements do not exist in appreciable quantities as singular atoms. Instead, they typically
page 2.2
are in the oxyanion forms (that is, bound to oxygen atoms). For instance, dissolved Se may exist
as H SeO or HjSeO^, and any of the conjugate forms. Organic methylated forms of Se may also
be present in significant quantities tmd are included along with the oxyanions in the reported
total concentration value. The speciation of each element is essential in conclusively determin-
ing the fate and toxicological impact.
Boron concentrations are generally in the order of mg/L while the other three trace
elements are present in the order of )ig/L. An extremely high level of B (226.9 mg/L) was observed
in cell 2 of Pryse pond in August 1988 compared to the 3 year average of 70.60 mg^. The
conservancy (i.e., non-reactivity) of B is well illustrated by the similarity in the rise of CI" and
B concentrations, each almost showing a ten fold increase.
Selenium concentrations are below quantitation levels at Barbizon pond while it is
barely detectable at Pryse pond and occasionally exceeds 1 mg/L at Peck pond especially in cell
5.
Arsenic concentrations greater than 1 mg/L have been detected in Pryse and Barbizon
pond waters while the highest concentration at Peck pond is 0.95 mg/L which was found in one
inflow sample. The highest pond water As concentration at Peck pond is 0.84 mg/L and this was
during the time the pond cell was being drained to dryness. Concentrations exceeding 2 mg/L
were found for Mo in many samples from all ponds. Additionally, Pryse inflow and pond waters
showed extremely high levels of Mo rangingfrom a minimum of L40 mg/L in inflow to 24.51 mg/
L in cell 2. While other solute concentrations in the pond water decreased with the lowering of
the degree of salinity as indicated by a 58.3 dS/m drop in EC, Mo increased from the previous
season because of a greater than three-fold increase in the inflow water Mo concentration.
It should be noted that the analytical data reported for As and Mo, as determined by the
ICP, are consistently higher than those reported by the CVRWQCB and DWR for the period 1986-
88 (Personal communication, D. Westcot and S. Ford). The extent of the data discrepancies
varied depending on the element and pond. Despite the differences, the database is subsequently
used in section 6 of this report because the error appears systematic rather than random.
The presence of trace elements in the drainage waters and consequently pond waters
may be associated with the distribution of trace elements in the San Joaquin Valley. Bradford
et al., (1989a) have reported on the distribution of 20 trace elements on the basis of three geologic
regions: the Alluvial Fan (AF) region, the Basin Rim (BR) region and the Lakebed (LB) region
(Table 2.2). Peck pond is situated in the AF region while Barbizon pond is in the BR region and
Pryse pond in the LB region. Of the four trace elements of interest here, the AF region is high
inB,MoandSe. The BRregionishigh in B only, and the LB region is high in As, Band Mo. These
observations are mostly consistent with the regional dominance of certain trace elements in
different ponds: B is high in all ponds; Se is high at Pryse pond; As and Mo are relatively
dominant in Pryse pond.
Table 2^ Distribution of Trace Elements in the San Joaquin Valley
(L = low, M = moderate, H = high)
REGION As B Mo Se_
Alluvial Fan L H M H
Basin Rim L M L L
Lakebed H H H L
page 2.3
Conclusions
The high saHnities achieved at Pryse pond through evapoconcentration of drainage
waters presents extremely high concentrations of B and Mo in the environment. Arsenic seems
to maintain a level concentration in the pond waters independent of the degree of salinization.
Selenium was not detectable at Barbizon pond, and did not rise significantly in highly
concentrated waters at Peck or Pryse ponds. The degree to which these trace elements
accumulate in the pond waters may be calculated and the results are presented in the section on
evapoconcentration factors elsewhere in this report. Furthermore, the accumulation of certain
trace elements depends on the location of the ponds in the San Joaquin Valley relative to the
geologic setting.
Whether these levels of trace elements pose substantial risks to wildlife and waterfowl
needs to be answered by those researchers studying the toxicological effects and concentrations
in the biological components.
page 2.4
Table 2
.3 Field-Measured Data for Seasonal Characterization of Peck Evaporation Pond Waters
OascnpiDn
Seaior Dae ot EC
pH
PwAPend
(X 1. WkxK
oi 1. imiow
Ol 1 . Inflow
OI \. imiow
CX1 1, Inilow
C«l 1. imiow
C*l 1, Inflow
C*! 1, Inlkjw
C«« 1. Inllow
Ol 1 . Inflow
Ol 1. Inflow
O* 1. Inflow
Wntauni
Eh
Alkalinity DO
|mp/ll CnftT)
OI1
C»« 1
o« 1
o« 1
oil 1
OR 1
OH ^
on 1
on 1
on 1
OH f
Cen 1
Unmufli
Midniwn
OI2
on 2
on 2
OI2
0«2
C«I2
OI2
OI2
OI2
OI2
0<2
Cell2
Uiilnitm
OII3
CM3
OI3
OI3
OI3
OI3
OI3
OI3
OI3
C«I3
OI3
013
^■Kntawffv
ilfaiimum
Summe'
f^^
Winter
Spfmfl
Summer
Fan
Winter
Spilrg
Summef
Fal
WIntar
Sprinj
Summei
Fan
Winter
Sptinfl
Surrmer
Fall
Winter
Sprmj
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fan
Winter
Sprmfl
Summer
FaJI
Winter
Sfxmfl
Summer
Fan
Winter
Sprr)5
Summer
Fal
Winter
S<yir>fl
Summer
Fal
Winter
Sprmfl
Summer
Fal
Winter
Sprir>8
11/16/86
2/8^87
&• 17/87
&'V87
11/14/87
5/21/88
B/wsa
11/12/88
2/17/B9
S«y89
8/2Sr86
11/1&'86
2/B/B7
&'17/87
&'V87
11/14/87
2«y88
5/21/88
8/9/88
11/12/88
2/17/89
S/2(VB9
Br2S/S6
11/16/86
2/6/67
S'17/87
a'y87
11/14/87
2/2088
S^l/88
Bwse
11/12/88
2/17/89
5/2(V89
a«V86
11/16fl6
2/8/87
S/ 17/87
a/&/87
11/14/87
2/20'88
i^1/88
a«88
11/12/88
2/17/89
S««9
11,380
10.800
10.920
10.830
10.3*0
8.530
8.350
11.850
11.530
».7»
«;sse
T1,«0
n,tM
11.065
14.100
10.980
11.426
13.356
9.650
8.360
13.190
15.056
14.740
14,136
15.650
•,3B0
tuae
25.085
17.060
13.106
12.700
18,940
24.200
15.240
1B.5S5
31.000
48.650
46.150
N/A
«,7W
4B^S0
*ua7
14,396
27,900
25,870
20,600
29,700
25,300
20,400
31,850
42,850
56,550
54,900
109.000
UJ»S
se,27«
7^3
718
7.56
7,64
7,36
7,21
7,20
7.19
7.11
7.70
T.7D
?>»
8.69
857
837
8.38
8.93
851
840
832
906
883
8 17
880
•.17
•i£
...■*«*,..:...
9.06
8,87
836
841
9.16
888
896
833
872
695
863
N/A
*M
»J*
9(X
9 13
8 96
654
886
9,07
898
864
868
899
657
684
tM
9.13
184
226
198
208
162
240
30
226
202
119
X
«
3<W
167
168
214
150
136
156
56
186
134
164
157
340
M
»«
.:::.,«•..:■..■.
122
161
220
123
136
120
95
173
132
81
166
I^A
t1
22D
13»
108
172
206
127
155
128
100
182
135
131
212
348
WO
»«
t67
282
265
275
276
300
250
265
250
270
216
>
«
SIS
300
ac4
113
175
168
170
110
123
175
163
110
116
110
105
tos
««
138
125
123
148
170
116
147
188
160
205
328
336
MA
»18
tx
WB
108
168
175
168
1S3
170
195
255
268
395
433
109
we
«33
218
y
7.7
7.4
7.3
56
8.4
6.8
7.6
64
6.0
8*"
M
7*
N/A
90
88
84
107
96
106
103
11.7
10 1
12.6
S4
i.4
^^£
10.2
N/A
8.7
10.5
8.3
12.6
10.5
11.6
9.9
7.6
107
13.1
N/A
TA
«.1
104
N/A
8.7
10.9
7.9
85
9.7
10.7
64
66
9.7
12.3
7.6
t£
«4
8.2
y
19
16
19
26
15
11
25
21
17
»
19
N/A
16
17
20
27
13
9
26
23
14
15
21
' *
27
»
N/A
17
17
20
27
13
9
26
23
14
16
N/A
27
N/A
17
16
20
28
14
8
25
23
14
16
22
»
i:No»ampte
y Ha anaV^ed
: Out of operaion
N/A: Not available
page 2.5
Table 2.4 Field-Measured Data for Seasonal Characterization of Peck Evaporation Pond Waters
OMcnpton Saator
Dneo'
EC
P^^
En
AJUiint,
DO
T
Meafiuremem
(umhoi/cm)
(mV]
(mo/li
(maT)
rci
PMkPond
CM*
Summe'
ft%^
25.010
898
118
120
N/A
N/A
CI*
Fat
11/16/86
27.t»0
895
171
171
83
17
C«I4
Wimer
2/8/B7
19.820
8.58
207
1S5
10.5
17
OI4
Sixmg
i'l?*?
21.950
861
IX
183
8.8
20
Cat*
Summaf
8/ifl7
44.800
895
144
223
It. 4
28
Ca**
Fal
11/14/87
M/A
N/A
N/'A
N/A
NA
N/A
(M*
Wintat
a^o-sa
"
•-
"
•*
—
"
(M*
Spfins
S/21/8e
—
•*
•*
—
**
•*
C*I4
Summar
Bwse
"
•^
—
"
•*
•*
(M*
Fall
11/12/88
"
**
"
••
*•
•"
<M*
Wintaf
2/17/89
—
••
••
••
*•
••
C-*
Sprmo
S/2(VS9
-
ua'
11a
" ■■■'«()
ei'
••
Hntnum
'wee
^y—--
ItaifanuB
♦MDC
•-•B
vr
223
lt.4
3*
mm
n,?»»
.. ..:.,:.•*».::
.:.::i..::.:.:::.,»»*, ,....:.
....... iro :.::
•>7
»
ots
Summer
8/2&'B6
».505
886
116
158
N/A
N/A
Gens
FaJ
11/16W
37.6X
922
147
2X
85
18
CX5
Winief
2*87
28.250
884
194
206
93
IB
C^5
Sfxmfl
5/17/87
30.800
865
139
248
83
20
o«s
Summer
a'S«7
48.700
8.93
ISO
255
10 1
28
0*5
Fa»
11/14/67
34.400
877
141
296
99
13
Cats
Winter
2/2<V8e
25.700
901
lOB
273
10 9
9
c«>s
Spr»>g
wi/Be
44.150
8.90
180
290
9-0
26
C««6
a«'88
59.950
8 73
127
355
6 4
22
Cats
Faf
11/12/8*
43.450
8 70
157
34B
9.1
14
Cats
Wimer
2/17/89
50.300
852
202
370
12.7
16
Ca«5
Sprrig
5«V89
84.650
905
276
658
101
22
Uritmm
♦M5C
toa
tM
«.4
12.7
«
Itaitaim
27%
eM
»
iMMM
«3»7
>^
«t
ao7
■: >ii!-;^^.-
mmmm^.
Cal6
Sp"ifl
VI 7/87
9.345
857
132
103
5.2
21
Cal6
Surrwnef
a-VB?
19.125
909
124
96
8.8
28
Ca«6
Fan
11/14/87
15.620
8,87
124
lie
9.0
13
Cal6
Winter
2/20/88
11.4X
925
102
123
11.9
8
Ca<E
Sp">8
S^l/88
17.500
877
174
120
95
27
Ca«6
SufT¥ner
8*38
21.725
898
114
118
99
23
CaCE
Fan
11/12/88
35.350
9 51
117
220
8.2
12
CalE
Wifitet
2/17/89
26.950
875
182
178
M2
16
Ca<E
............. .............,......„.-..?P^
Sfio/ea
36.600
959
244
VB
188
•5
220
9.5
SS
13.2
21
MMmum
■■■■'"■■"'«""■■
Mutmum
K,coe
»S9
244
2e
lte«)
n^w
•XM
t4e
t40
ajs
M
~: Out ol operation
r:NoianaVJ
ae
N/A: Notava
uiabie
page 2.6
Table 2.5 Field-Measured Data for Seasonal Characterization of Pr>se Evaporation Pond Waters
DwaplKxi
Daeoi EC
Mea&uremeni (timho&'cm)
pH
Eh
|mV;
AKuUiniTy
DO
T
PryM Pend
CXI 1. Inflow
Call 1. Mlow
Cain, imiow
Call LMtoH
Call 1. Inflow
Call 1. Inflow
Call 1. Inflow
Call 1 . Inflow
Call 1. Inflow
Call 1, Inflow
Call 1. Inflow
Call 1. InfKm
tkidmun
Cain
Cain
Call 1
Call 1
Cain
Call 1
Call 1
Cell 1
Call 1
Call 1
Cain
Cain
MMnwn
Mutmum
mm
Call 2
Call 2
C«I2
C«I2
Call 2
Call 2
Call 2
Call 2
Call 2
Call 2
Call 2
Call 2
Mntfflvn
Summer
»2&S6
31.560
762
Fall
11/1VB6
X.980
7.49
Wimar
2/7/67
27.770
8 13
Spring
i^^&lB^
30.200
7,41
Summef
s/i/ei
33.50C
7,40
Fall
11/14/87
27.400
744
WnMr
i/xyea
27,100
7.51
Sprtng
W1/88
33.100
7.52
Summer
B««e
28 800
7 46
Fall
11/12/88
31.000
7.54
wmtat
2/11/89
22.700
6,71
Spring
Sfioiea
».700
7.61
s.-ne
f.Tt
3D,S(S
a.i3
a»^i
7M
Summer
B/26/86
53.390
652
Fail
11/1S/86
46.750
850
Wlolar
2/7/67
25.6*5
6 67
Spnnfl
5/16/87
43.300
833
Summer
&4.'e7
63.150
850
Fall
ii/i*/e7
46,750
8,36
Wmier
Z/20I&S
41,150
651
Spnng
br2i ISB
47.250
672
Summe-
ej^6B
56,550
856
Fall
.ii/i2''8e
63 200
875
Wint6r
2/11/39
43.50C
633
....Sprt"B...^
5/2(V89
53.050
3SJU6
873
»S3
«iSOi>
•.78
MM>1
•.54
Summer
V26/K
129.0S0
e.34
Fall
11/15/86
70,745
8.24
Wmer
2/7/87
35,850
8 76
Spnng
^'16/67
86,000
863
Summef
8/*/87
N.A
N,'A
Fall
11/14/87
N/A
N/A
WMw
Z/20/B8
65.150
8,S2
Spnng
5/21/88
71.400
8.77
Summer
B«Be
174.700
7,42
Fall
11/12/88
N/A
N/A
Wintar
2'11/89
N/A
N/A
Spnnj
5/20/88
133.350
827
36jae
7/«S
1T4.TO0
•JR
«,«•
•.44
162
92C
Y
y
166
810
98
18
198
840
10,0
16
134
606
64
23
206
816
62
26
215
810
8.2
20
181
676
76
18
206
836
7,3
27
159
866
86
26
136
840
80
22
122
770
10.6
12
256
sas
7.4
26
12t
770
'9 '
,:.....--,„. ^^
sc
«2Q
It
»
iw
A39
e
It
169
636
N/A
N/A
139
693
81
16
192
598
12-6
16
146
566
66
23
183
590
50
27
IBS
70S
136
19
152
735
67
20
96
626
50
29
79
656
109
29
134
806
21
22
115
726
13.2
12
240
780
16,1
27
7»
SBi
2
12
»4Q
•M
t6
2»
1S2 ,„,:
:-..,: :.;.«''5 ......
. »
.,,.,„....-...»
114
1^60
N/A
N/A
140
890
61
14
178
535
107
13
123
423
42
22
N/A
NiA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N.A
N/A
N/A
137
666
64
21
154
530
7.8
X
■150
1.560
45
32
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
167
833
39
29
'■ao
«23
4
13
1«7
1IW
11
32
IM
•48
t
«9
y: NolanayzaC
N'A. Not available
page 2. 7
Table 2.6 Field-Measured Data for Seasonal Characterization of Barbizon Evaporation Pond Waters
Oseapiton
Dale 0* EC
PH
Eh
(mVi
DO
T
j:cj_
Baitijan Pond
IrrtOix. OH C
mtloo. OH C
Inllow. C^t C
Inflow. Can C
Irrfloo. OK C
Inllow. CXI C
Inllow. C*' C
MIow. 0«C
Inllow. C«liC
Oil A. Wee
Oil A. Was
Oil A. Wsei
C«ll A. Was
OH A. W«e
OiiA. Wse
Oil A. Wea
on A. W«s
Cell A. Wea
Oil A. Wes
CXI A. Wee
OH A. Was
ilttfirirntjtt
ifaiiinuai
OIIB. Eas
Oil B. Eas
OIIB. Eas
OIIB. Eas
OIIB. Eas
Oil B. Eas
OIIB. Eas
OIIB. Eas
OIIB. Eas
OIIB. Eas
OIIB. Eas
OIIB. Eas
UaidnuHfi
OH C. Easi
OliC. Easi
Oil C. East
OIIC. Easi
one. Ear
OIIC. Easi
OIIC. Easi
Call C. Easi
Call C. East
Call C. East
Call C. Ea«
CallC.Eaci
Spnnfl
Summer
Fall
Winler
Spring
Summef
Fall
Wmtar
Spring
Summar
Fall
Winter
Spnnj
Summe'
Fall
Winlar
Spnng
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Writer
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spnng
Summer
Fail
Winter
Spnng
Sunvner
Fall
Wner
Sp»w9
Surrmer
Fall
Writer
Spnng
Summer
Fall
Wnter
Spring
i;No»anpi«
11/1V87
2/21/86
hr22IS8
a/ityge
ti/i:ve£
2/11/89
SSI/89
8/26/66
11/1V86
2/7/87
BliJB7
ii/ive7
2/21/86
5.22 86
a/1CV86
11/13/86
2/11/89
i21/89
VX/SB
11/1V86
2/7/87
&il&'87
ai4;e7
11/15/87
2/21/86
5^22/86
ft'1CV86
ll/ll'8e
2/11/89
5/21/89
a/2ty86
11/1^86
V16«7
B/«/E^
Il/IVB"
2/21/88
S22/86
a/1(V8£
11/11^
2/11/eS
5/21/89
6.720
8.110
7.730
8.860
7.730
8.880
8.365
23.39C
29.500
11.0*0
26,100
29.200
20,800
16.8'0
24 100
39,900
22.300
14.360
31.500
IIJMO
88 .800
34,280
21.850
27.900
21.530
27.700
27.200
23 600
16.450
26.200
46.300
19.710
12.910
X
1S.»tO
48400
20.900
26.00C
18.770
21.400
25.200
24.200
16.000
25.500
21.500
11.170
8.780
9.320
8,780
28,000
\»3»
7.43
7.83
7.36
7.33
733
733
7.49
9 10
905
7.49
8 70
9 43
862
847
8 96
8,86
7.72
8.58
861
7.48
8.43
8.6S
9 10
9 16
862
892
932
880
9 07
9.26
940
885
907
X
8j82
8.40
BAS
9.10
9.oe
859
898
921
878
9.21
9 07
9 42
896
9.22
825
8.8£
>/<3
8M
212
186
125
276
125
S76
18S
153
166
179
177
151
173
■83
161
16
124
75
243
■83
843
127
147
172
182
168
148
172
•15
163
23
118
94
I
■IB
182
tzs
147
153
150
157
149
171
5
164
•132
113
85
260
•Mi
880
1»8
530
510
70S
660
S10
705
801
660
665
665
550
355
500
520
396
260
525
545
315
180
8«S
486
676
665
555
555
455
490
496
426
290
676
505
X
»0
€7S
sat
675
66C
555
546
476
470
505
465
400
570
516
eeo
400
«o
«4
33
5.6
23
25
9
7
8
20
3
,i'r:yM::^-
8
25
«
18
y
1
61
19
8 8
20
10,8
27
120
29
92
9
106
8
83
23
4 4
22
7,8
14
10.0
6
10.4
19
4
t
IS
28
8
,18,.,,...
»
y
60
19
8,0
18
12-0
27
9,0
29
104
8
140
9
8.0
23
68
21
60
13
10,2
6
X
>
8
«
14
9
8
.,.:,..,::.:.:v:¥..;17
y
y
7,0
19
86
18
14.3
28
9.1
29
9.0
9
15.0
9
68
23
25
22
68
13
10.2
6
17.8
19
»
•
IB
a»
10
t8
y Not anaiirzed
page 2.8
oooooooooo
OOO 000000000'-oZo*"0
gfv. o ^ ^ m fs. —
eDOif^r«-oo«> V v
oooobooo
4aoo o — odooooZ2ZZo'»"o
8 a u^ o Qi n 01
y & tt f^ PiJ ^ **
o o b b b o o
,?S8 S 2 S ; S S S S< < < < 2S 8
K<58S8;S<<<2»55
oZooooooZZZZ^OO
!C£ £ SSSSS SS, - -588 S S § S 5 « S X 5 R 2 | S S » 5 S 8 S ;: S £ S S ? ? | 8 8 g
S? 5 = S SS S ?S - -a^S 3 S SSESS !C£SS S88 8
|s;ase?S£|||588
8S|UgS3ftg--15l SlsPSSiiS.5.s.§.||g |i.n.?^.||5.||||l||
<r ^ K & ^. r^ r^ r^ CD » 3 ^- ^- ^- ^- F» ^ ^ cm" ^" — * ** ^' (\ »-" — " ri « « * « W
en
is
n??RSsg?S--||g S5i? = §8SS55S?2g| ^S|38gSggSg||.5S
22--"-<»'->no«>---S» 22<^aj£2.r,C!:;na«»X;: RS'"::!£SRSSS8|«»>5a
c
i
2z?§sS = !§£--i?S «5S!6535s§2»£ls Ss? : 2 SssSSslSIS
c
a
e
>
Si!SS§55f§--l2S §8?f5s§sssg25|| siS||5S8|ss|§5|
SS^SoSobg —
fsi •-" (*J fC ^ "^ Cg fsd tsi Cu
L M S 7* rt <D r) fs/ Oj oi ff) r-_ tn ^_ ^-_ r^. « V^ I
^ rJ W fv c\ (m" cJ ts? pJ cu csi ri n' ri n" r* **» 1
^' ■«■ o N r> ID m' ■»■ eo 2 S « S »
O
"3
u
E
o
^^
s
J
o
£
00
«
K
r»
c
m
E
£
t
kft „"''''
82«SRS82::R . -re:; £ 5; R S 8 S 5 ft S 2 ^ 8 S; ? S £ £ S ; 2 S $ R R S 8 1 1^ S R
g§I§^§gi§8..f|3^ silS^igSg^??!!! i.P.§I^.Is§.«.?<«?l
5 o- 2 S S S 2 -■ -• Si :5s i -■ : 2 =• c S- - 2 i! : : e Jfs; 5 s :: 2 2 2 a 2 £ s 5 ? ^ C « JS
s S S I 5
* - s 1
ig£
ji £ a
g = ^
< ^ e^ *?1 ^ ^ 3)
,111111111111
l§§iS53S55353ill 555353535353III 35535SS35333
I
CNtcvrsicvrgojCN^cMCMr^r^tsj
III
page 2.9
I
C
C
I
5
-s
o
09
u
E
«
6
5
a
I
s
1
&
oe
el
o
z
-1
8
^f
1
: : : : ?5^
O « ••
? ? ?
O M r>
i« Rat ; as* «s<Sfc§ "fsss, ,,,,,,
88g58SS8|fe8R ?S?:
S§PS??SS?i§HII SIrH, t?i
m E s 2 2 :e s s 8 S R a • S 5 z s a 2 ;; • 5 2
SS§§^5^8§?SS.2|^ I.S.ISS: : : : : : : I H |
»-■ cw rf ^' (si fy fsi" n ^ <c OS ft ^ S * rw* cy* •- — ^ ^ ♦ *j
Sgg^SSSS-nlElS gn!^S= = = = = = =iS8
ts58§2fSi|||e|i? ?lgl?s= = = = = = 'SsS
SslSSJ§aS?5§58S iSHi- SIS
p^ <E »■ V in r-: r.' to" S R S S "^ 8 2 xi <e ■« ■. ct.
8£g5j?8S55ni8l ?!R55= = = = = = =5^5
S K S 8 R S R S *■ S X ? ? I B S S 2 S 3 * » S
« * «
"5
A
«
O
?iil
m r^ fi» r^ r«-
s ^^
8
I
■6
1
553555353333!
5 3 5 3 5 .5 3 5 <5 5 3 5 H
page 2.10
a
HO
c
c
c
c
a
>
0;
Cm
m
c
<
E
U
&>
S
CE
(-
O
2
3
n
e4
e
■
of
- ^
ui E
o
ill
bZoobbbbZZZZ^a^j^ ooooozzzzijoib
SS! :^ ^ E ES S SSS|3^8 SS S^tR 9Pl!»!;i| sss
|ssKSg5sS||.-*-S8 ii;s2S8S| ;"«8a
n ::' £ t S R" 2 R S R S £ :f S « n < - r-- < o g ,2 - 5 j; ;:
g § ? 5 s g I S 2 g 5 I|!.l5 g s s S B s i § ii I !^
fsi" n pJ n" ^ ^ ri ^ f-' «' f*"* ^ ♦i' 55 * ^ ^ »- — c- •« o ^ * ♦*
"5 S Z3 2? S 8s 8g«RR 2 S »?;:: S5 SS tS«
sf.f S3|ssill|i|8 s»«s§ig85li5
s!HiSSSsS«li|S s»S5^5S5«SI5
§ S i ? S i R 5 8 S. 1 1 1 1 1 S i S 8 I i § ? 2 5 1 1
» r-: < a> w £ s C! S 2 S 8 -rf 8 C - <-; V V ri <o :: < 2 -^ s «
5 SRSjggRKgSJRS B55?^'S?^§H
S»S SS F:58?R»SSS|9 I^ S £ K ;: 3 :^ ^ S E; S; 3
8' 8 S 8 ? S S 5 S 5 S a If SO » 2 iC :: C: K S Se 8 • J(! 5
iiigssiillli
s s f» 5 a = g s ^ i 5 1
3i*sgs*ss:
Iff/
page 2.11
•r
I
c
o
>
E
e
3
09
«
= 1
LU E
S P
« E
^oOooooooo eoo ooZooooooo'^^o^•o
^„„„rt _,>,„-- --5»« n£•,^«~■..nnotvc^J«e«
§_ -.^ o_,r)ccrw--o«ecr)pfvj-.f»g>
S -« r-. (i r^. tf^. »/i » <B C f\. ». i^ Jt ^ *f. f^: (s; oi V ri Cw' < - -^ «5 i" E ^
2 2 2
, s s i 5 ;;. I s 8 8 i R s R 5 »■ * R 5 ;:•
01 o (c n
tf^' <0 *' CD CD ^ <C f*' to *D *0 ^- I
O •- f« O O
O re D ^« jj ]P *^
ffi O to R S ^ *-,
V (D O C%' ^ • W
S:^5R<<::?5<<s?5 2
. oZZ2---«2z2o^ii-
S?rS2222S222C«8
z-zz'^^'^zzz^*'
S S ::' R ^ ^ S S S ^ ^ S t 8 X
- tt V ;■ 2 Z ^ ;n 5 Z Z ^- J 5 -
Or^<S»01i^OW»IS_'fl_«C< r,^.™c-»(\C«i£5<»-«l8» !C£'»C^<<9pS<<8aS*
§ s 1 1 1 s. 5 1 § I i § 2 £. I g a 5 5 g s g I i !■ I s-£ M ; :■ f; s 2 2 i 5 ;. 2 2 «. s 5 n
-55SRSSSS58S«5fc 2CgRS;;SSS?SSSf:J? SSSS||S£S||S82R
RSnnKnnftcKcuXRrtR
s 5 8 ft s s s R s s I % le
I ;o (p (B <©' f«.' r»' f^' r* ® r^ • *» •
????IIS5g??«^S2!
§58g§§88§§8g|||
S 8 R" 8 8 R R R R S 8 8 a 8 R
§. i s £ s S s s s :■ 8 s S ;:-8 ;- li :: ■!:■ z 2 :• ^ o z z 5 ng 5
f|i^ils3^.5§P.|2| §.n,.|<|§.|||||.||l
_■ *K -^- *'. ^- ^' _• _ «C ws ru <-i i;- ». W m to « r- ^ ^ ^ a _ ^ *■
O ffi P (* O O ;
^ ^--- cv — ^
gRS5SSS!$?SSS|;«a '?°5i25??222flE
S S S 5 S $ 5 5 S S 5 SU 8 » R g S £ ^ ^ £ ^ ? ^ ^ 5 8 t S
s.
tr'„.'
7||llllllllll„£
Hi
page 2.12
ii
c
c£
c
o
CO
>
c
o
03
■E
E
U
E
3
C
X
ee
£f
a
2 I
588
<2 o o
* V
^ (c r-
^ d d
M K K
^ M M X
8 a o
<N* O —
e i? s
. 8 ..8 8? ,558,§88.88..8 8?v°|8vi88v8,.88?
.5 ,S5«8SR:?;5iSf:2SXv v??8. SS8 = SRStRSv.5Si8.
.,.v S8R325RR:R3vvvv i??8oSSvS«5vvvy-aJ;R
. ..8>.aS|2| = S~SSnsRS..5|9[|S8|SSR8SS£.|||
§88 SII|SlpispSj.|ii|J^I§5|i|lg|sS.-|||
S - -• n tv; ^ « rl f-' £ r- « o. 2 ffl a t £ r- n « t • ■= » « <» => - " S R « • • 8 •
s i !f 2 agS j^S ig g s? 8 3 i ^ s 5^i |§ iM.ssa.M.II .|rS
X- ^- * ^- ^- • W' ■^ ri' V rsi en en V ri H < V r) •-' •■ ^ W r; ^ CNi r! r> in n ^ a -« r) ♦* ■# ^
« •" 9!
M « tn n
IS2IH21" = «i£s?S£§S225iiS§e32ssal-|li
. , «-^£««.S;sR;;8S£ts::2<»«5RS!J~::2!5^ = S:2 -?«R
I
i
..SSs..---?«8||SS§R = SS5 8SgS8|5g5SRgSg|5S^-:S|5
..R8!C.--.-s8«8sS?R|?SS;SSg8§J[3s2iB5S$S8s8.»55
- « S S S - » - « « £ S ft S £ S R £ f! o ?- n » r-. S :. S 5 h J4 8 r^. r». ifi - T >-. « £ ~. I--. - 5 2 <
..R28..-..«SSe8PSSP:sCS£SSie5l?tR5SSS5S£SRSa-?|g
..558.»-..RRMt£88S;S5«SfJa£R«2S2SSft8oRSSB.8«|
iiisls^iini illsisiiiiil iippllii^l
I
IIIIIIIIIISI
lillllilllli
1* <■ < < < < < < < < < < .
3353555555551
X uJLULULUUJUJUJLULUUJUJUJha
S C CC CC CQ S Oi tL CD CS Ol fE CD (S E £ C
1 J353555535353I1I
page 2.13
c
(£
c
c
■c
e
i
>
U
c
c
e
n
o
m
_^
E
5
cc
3
IB
0;
£
m
_ s
w E
3
v^og ^888 v<8 >.???
^KOih.H»-*o V V v^-^^i*
— -- ^ d '^ CNJ o O ^ *•
^PuCDWf^ — O V V V V «*^*4"R
— '0--0000 o^o
RSSKsssass -Jg?
V •- •- Cg *- •- •-
» e ^' r~' 2f <=■ £ ® « ■• " »f 5 K
^ rw fsi en tn n' ^ <^ f^ *" »'^ •» «f ^
S§2^252""»«?^»8
^l2s8sSii5?i512
sEB^a^ssssSgsgH
V « ^ ^ V f^* «n' * ® " ^ * « <• »*>
■*tf>Sin*r^tn3^^jgSKK^
0)OiflDCDO>S09900<
R9S
i§S.|§.P.PP.?.8SgU
I
KLULULUUJUJLUUJUJLlJLUUJLU
5 u d d d d d d d d d d d .
page 2.14
BarbUon Evaporation Pond: ANIONS
C03 ♦ HC03
Barbizon Evaporation Pond: CATIONS
Na^K
^ *^- ^: <
\
''\
f \
"K—r*
CI
„ \/ \/ '\/ V-" \:'" <!;
\/ \.- \/ ■V:' V \> ^
A A A /\ ,-v /s ,/\ /n
V /- V' > /■ \/ s/ \/ V.
i>n 11.11 I 7l' ifif»i.-.T^'Tfifir»-.^Vi-i'VI- — -''■"-'■•-*-^'''«'"*'*'*'^''^
AAA
/~"/\ >\ }\ /%
^ V V V V ^;
A /\ /\ A f'\ .'\
/\/\/\/VVV
A A / s / N / \ / \
sr
S04
Ca
/ \ / S ,-■ V .- N / \ / \ / \ / \ /■ \
Mg
Peck Evaporation Pond: ANIONS
C03 + HC03
Peck Evaporation Pond: CATIONS
Na + K
/ V V V '
^......„.....«
A,/\/\/\
-•^ : A A /\ A
/yVA/VAA
/ \ / \/ \/ \/ V V \
/VVV\A/v:..N.A
\"".>\ /\ /S /S /\ /\ /\ /%
—f'. -V- 3
A/V
-^ — y\-
■■ \; ^.■■ s--' \: ^^
S04
Ca
„„V ic —
■Vs
CA
Mg
Pryse Evaporation Pond: ANIONS
COS 4^ HC03
/ V x/
AA/x/^^^
CI S04
Pryse Evaporation Pond: CATIONS
Na + K
/\ ./ N
.-■»
/ \' X' \
%/ \/ V \
Figure 2.1 Ternary diagrams of the relative concentrations of major cations and anions in evaporation
pond waters (meq/1 basis)
page 2.15
SECTION 3
DIURNAL MONITORING OF PONDS
Introduction
Diurnal studies were carried out at Peck, Pryse and Barbizon evaporation ponds in
March and August 1989. The studies comprised bihourly analysis of water samples from the
ponds, and half-hourly data acquisition of weather conditions. Water samples were collected
from one site at Barbizon and Pryse ponds, while Peck pond was sampled at two sites in March
and three in August. Of the three samples at Peck pond during the August study, one was taken
from a pool containing brine shrimp (BS), and another from a brackish pool containing salts (SP).
The third sample was taken from an adjacent cell containing less saline water.
Methodology
Water Chemistr\' Parameters
Pond water was collected at regular intervals at selected locations in 1 L Nalgene
polyethylene bottles. Chemical parameters (Table 3.1) were measured and recorded on-site.
Table 3.1 Instruments used for measuring Pond Water Chemical Parameters in Diurnal Study
O Temperature and pH Markson Model 90 pH/Temperature meter, Markson
combination electrode
O Eh Markson Model 90 Meter with Markson Pt electrode
3 DO YSI Model 54A Oxygen Meter and Probe
a Conductivity YSI Model 32 Conductivity Meter, YSI 3417 Dip-Type
Cell, YSI 400 Series Temperature Probe
0 Density Fisherbrand specific gravity hydrometer range 1.000-
1.225 and cylinder
Evaporation Parameters
Diurnal monitoring for evaporation data at the agricultural drainage evaporation ponds
was accomplished using instrumentation developed by Campbell Scientific. The principal
device was a CR-21 battery-operated data-logger connected to various weather instruments
described later.
Five parameters were monitored every half hour during a 24-hour period. First, wind
speed was measured with a Met One 014 wind cup anemometer. Wind direction was monitored
using a Met One wind vane. Gross solar radiation was measured using a Lichor pyranometer
from Campbell Scientific. Relative humidity was measured using a Physical-Chem instrument
also from Campbell Scientific. Additionally, temperature was recorded using a Campbell
Scientific temperature probe.
Instrumentation was set up on a pipe and stand cross-bar (Figure 3.1). The wind-speed
and the wind-direction instruments were placed 2 m above ground level on one of two cross-bars.
All other instruments were attached onto the other cross-bar 1 m above ground level. Due to the
extreme heat of the summer monitoring trip, the temperature probe was kept shaded. The CR-
21 unit was kept out of direct sunlight and also protected from dew-point moisture by wrapping
it in a plastic bag.
piige 3.1
1
<
1
Wra
Whd
Sf»s<l
utnctof)
—m —
1
- !▼
T.
T0fTip0rmrum
Solv
Humaty
Radtaton
1
- -.-.H
-r,:;r ' '
1
',"',', 1
m 2 m
CR-31
1
r ' '
\n\\n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\w
^\\\\
Figure 3.1 Weather monitoring equipment set-up.
Incoming data to the CR-21 data-logger is processed by pre-programmed macro pro-
grams which transform the direct readings into the desired units. Data stored in the data logger
is transcribed into a computer spreadsheet at the end of each 24 hour monitoring period.
Observations
Pond Waters
Figures 3.2-3.5 and 3.9-3.13 show the pond water diurnal data for March and August,
respectively. All data tables for the above figures are in Appendix A Cyclical variations in
several of the water quality parameters were expected and observed in most cases. For example,
variations in dissolved oxygen are directly related to the activity of aquatic organisms including
algae (Barbizon) and plankton (Peck BS). Fluctuations in water temperature are dampened and
slightly lagged those of air temperature. None of these observations were unexpected.
The electrical conductivity (EC) of the waters did not remain constant even though they
were corrected for temperature. The EC data also did not exhibit a wave-like nature.
Interestingly, the EC did not change dramatically with temperature in Peck SP which contained
water in equilibrium with a vast amount of evaporite minerals (mainly mirabilite). The response
to temperature change in a saturated solution may increase with larger temperature changes or
may be simply a slow process. Diurnal changes in density, pH and Eh were not readily
distinguishable and often suffered from 'noise'.
Above Pond
Figures 3.6-3.8 and 3.14-3.16 show the above pond diurnal data for March and August,
respectively. All data tables for the above figures are in Appendix A. Solar radiation generally
peaked before noon in the March study, but peaked just afler noon during the August study.
Relative humidity tended to be low during the day and significantly greater at night. The air
temperature behaves cyclically, peaking at about 2 to 4 PM and reaching a minimum around 3
to 6 AM. The wind direction data is evenly scattered at all angles except at Peck where the wind
predominantly came from the northeast. Wind speeds averaged between 0.4 to 0.6 m.s '.
page 3.2
r 1.055
30 1
l
d 20 -
\
^
.^
H
r^
/*
/
\
^
— (
^
^
>—
— (
►—
^
— (
^
>;
a
E
d .«
A
^
V
'4
o 1«^
— • — ■
I
0-
1 —
___
—
.^^
I— -|
^
1 —
—
0 3 6 9 12 15
TIME (HOURS)
Figure 3.2 March Diurnal Study: Pryse (Water Sample Analysis)
18
21
550
500
>
450 E
01
400
350
24
O = left axis
• = right axis
'^ = noon
pcige 3.3
1.020
1-1.000
9 12 15
TIME (HOURS)
18
Figure 3.3 March Diumal Study: Barbizon (Water Sample Analysis)
21
o E left axis
• = right axis
I' — nrtr»n
page 3.4
r1.080
80 ■:
}
\
-o./u
E 78:
/
;
^
}
\
-8.65
•*«-.
1
/
\
4
1
f
\
CO
f
k^
V
,--^
\,
/
\
TJ 76 -
/
^^
\
/
\
^
>
\
f
t
\
/
s
/
^
r'
V
L
i>
N
^
-8.60
9 74 i
I
/
Uh
/
^
1
1
lO
/
^^Ji^ 1 ■■ V
^i^!
^j^^f"^ ^
\
w
/
V
v-^ "
-8.55
O 72 •;
/
.
70 -
\
J
i
1 — —
— 1 —
^
—
-8.50
12
15
18
21
24
Z
a
12 15
TIME (HOURS)
Figure 3.4 March Diumal Study: Peck 3NW (Water Sample Analysis)
o = left axis
• = right axis
N
= noon
>
E
£
lU
page 3,8
1.075
66 :
1
A
ro.9
■
1
/ s
■8.8
E ^\
^
-^
_ ^ _
-4
"c-^
^
kJ
Jt-,
A^
\
r8.7
w
/
\
/
^s^
f"'*^^'^
^ --W
( — '
— ^
k
,
/ y
c
■o 64 :
/
s
k .
/
^'
s
^
^
/
r8.6
^
/
\ /
K
/
's
h /
Z
o 63 ■
/
V
\
/
/
r8.5
a
CM
/
\
;:
r"
— *<
Y
T
r8.4
61 -
(
_
—
1
N
/
— 1
r8.3
^8.2
12
15
18
21
24
9 12 15
TIME (HOURS)
Fipire 3^ March Diurnal Study: Peck 5 SW (Water Sample Analysis)
O = left axis
• c right axis
N _
noon
page 3.6
o
o
30 •
25 •
20 •
15 ■
^
—
-
-
^
^
^^
10 •
5-
t
1
1
r
■^
■~*
0 1
1 1
X
c
o
«
•o
CO
iS
180
150
WIND SPEED (m/s)
0 AND
DIRECTION
210
270
Figure 3.6
March Ehumal Study: Pryse
(Weather Monitoring)
page 3.7
k
o
o
X
oc
100
c
o
cs
CO
tc
w
a
o
100 -3
■
•
— ^- .
i
80 -;
60 ■;
^
"^
-^
>s_
r
40 •
s
K
A
1
20 :
\
J
\
/
/
\
^ ^
^
0 -
12
15
18
21
150
180
TIME (HOURS)
WIND SPEED (m/s)
AND
DIRECTION
210
270
Figure 3.7
March Diumal Study: Peck
(Weather Monitoring)
24
page 3.8
o
o
<
30 -
25 ■:
-
V
-*-
V
^
V.
^
^
><-^
/
^
^
^
N
V
20 1
15 -i
10 ■;
5:
<
0 -1
'
■
12
15
18
21
24
X
(E
100 -
80 ■;
60 -.
40 •;
20 :
i
1
J
1
3
1
' • t •
1
i
0 -1
c
o
«
a
^
TIME (HOURS)
ISO
ISO
210
WIND SPEED (m/s)
, AND
DIRECTION
Fifur* 3^
March Diurnal Study: Barbizon
(Weather Monitonng)
page 3.9
0)
c
a>
a
30 ;
^^
^"^
—i
^
s
.
d 20 ■
E
§10^
/
Y\
\
\
\
/
<
N
s^
/
/
^
^
t
^
^
^
^
J.
r
)
-4
^
— 0
I
N
^
'
\
'
^i^
T'
0-
1 —
*"^
r"
1—
1 —
►— 1
'
g 12 15 18
Time (Hours)
Figure 3.9 August Diurnal Study; Pryse (Water Sample Analysis)
21
500
450
>
MOO \
£
UJ
350
300
24
o = left axis
• = right axis
page 3.10
1.020
9 12 15
Time (Hours)
18
Figure 3.10 August Diurnal Study: Barbizon (Water Sample Analysis)
21
rSOO
O = left axis
• = right axis
N
= noon
>
E
£
UJ
page 3.11
1.015
rlO.O
X
a
9 12 15
Time (Hours)
18
Figure 3.11 August Diumal Study: Peck INW (Water Sample Analysis)
21
o = left axis
• = right axis
N_
noon
>
E
UJ
page 3.12
1.125
Z
a
9 12 15
Time (Hours)
o = left axis
• = right axis
N
noon
Figure 3.12 August Diurnal Study. Peck BS (Wat^r Sample Analysis)
page 3.13
40 -1
1.35
4M.30
■1.25
1.20
c
o
z
a
g 12 15
Time (Hours)
O c left axis
• = right axis
N
= noon
Figure 3.13 August Diurnal Study: Peck SP (Water Sample Analysis)
page 3.14
8?
■o
n
cr
o
CO
100 -
80 -
1
60 -
]
^
^
40 -
\/
N
s
1
y
20 -
V
s
\
/
J
0 -
— I— ^
X
^
— •-
Ud
/
V
1— ^
—
-^
150
180
210
S 12 15
TIME (HOURS)
18
WIND SPEED (m/s)
0 AND
DIRECTION
21
270
Figure 3.14
August Diurnal Study: Pryse
(Weather Monitoring)
24
page 3.15
o
o
<
00 -
80 -
^
r^
^-^
^
^
*
^^
».^___^
,^f
60 •■
N
V
^^
^
40 ■;
"^^
^
^
^
20 -
A
I
0 H
1 — 1
12
15
18
■o
a
o
9 12
TIME (HOURS)
15
18
ISO
180
210
WIND SPEED (m/s)
° AND
DIRECTION
270
21
24
00 -;
80 •
i
60 •;
40 ■
/
J
y
\
^
--^
X
\
20 ■
0-
/
/
V
V
1
>
^
_
21
24
Figure 3.15
August Ehurnal Study: Barbizon
(Weather Monitoring)
pcige 3.16
o
40 ■
35 •
J
'^
30 •
25 •
^
J
y
J
V
s^
N
V
V
20 ■
15 ■
10 ■
V.
—
—
^
/^
y'
V
1 —
— 1
1 —
< ^
^
-*"
100
55
c
o
■D
CO
oc
o
(0
150
12
15
18
I ) I I I I I I I I * i
3 6 9 12
TIME (HOURS)
180
210
WIND SPEED (m/s)
AND
" DIRECTION
270
21
Figure 3.16
August Diumal Study: Peck
(Weather Monitoring)
24
page 3.17
CIMIS Weather Data
The CIMIS hourly weather data from stations near to the evaporation ponds under
investigation (Peck, Pryse, and Barbizon) for 24-hour periods in March Eind August, 1989 are
included in ^pendix B. Fluctuation of conditions recorded in the CIMIS data include: tempera-
ture from 7 to 17°C; relative humidity from 40 to 75%; wind speed from 1 to 4.8 mile/hr (usage
of mile&^r rather than m/s is necessary for calculations. However, all records of data are in m/
s); and vapor pressure from 3.2 mbar to 9 mbar. This suggests that the evaporation rate will also
vary similarly.
Floating Evaporation Pan Data
Table 3.2 shows the evaporation measurements from floating evaporation pans located
at Peck evaporation pond with different salinity levels. CJenerally, evaporation rate decreases
as salinity increases due to a salinity effect on reducing water surface vapor pressure. Figures
3.17, 3.18, 3.19 and 3.20 show that the evaporation rate from water having an EC=14dS/m was
higher than water with an EC of 30 dS/m. Additionally, water with an EC of 30 dS/m has a higher
daily evaporation rate than water of 47 dS/m. Figure 3.21 shows that the cumulative evaporation
from the floating pans was of the order EC= 14 dS/m > =30 dS/m > =47 dS/m >ET^. Table 3.3
contains the 2- day hourly evaporation loss (mm/hr) and cumulative loss (mm) from the floating
pans having an EC of 14 dS/m. The data shows that the evaporation rate during night time
contributed significantly to the total evaporation. Figures 3.22 to 3.26 show the effect of the
individual weather parameters on the potential evapotranspiration (ET^) and the average
evaporation rate from the floating pans containing saline water (EC= 14 dS/m) at Peck pond.
Average measured daily evaporation rates of agricultural drainage decreased from 8.0 mm/day
in August to 2.3 mm/day in November for the 14 dS/m water (Figure 3.27).
Potential Use of CIMIS ET^ as a Predictor of Evaporation Rate from Evaporation Ponds
California's network of CIMIS weather stations could provide a useful tool for predicting
evaporation rates firom evaporation ponds. Cumulative evaporation measurements from Peck
pond were well correlated to CIMIS-calculated ET^ as reported from the nearby station at
Murrietta farms. An ET__ correction factor was calculated for cumulative evaporation rates at
different salinity levels from data collected during August through October, 1989. This
correction factor was then correlated to the EC of the water up to 61 dS/m (Figure 3.28). The
result is a simple linear model with an r-squared value of 87% which yields an ET^ correction
factor from input of the drainage water EC:
Y = 1.3234 - 0.0066 EC (dS/m)
where Y is the ET^ correction factor.
The actual relation might be not linear, but this relation could be used for making
ballpark estimates within the range of salinity used, and it illustrates the potential for
developing such a model.
Figures 3.29 a, b and c show the calculated (using the above model) and the measured
evaporation rates as well as the cumulative rates (Figures 3.30 a, b and c) from the floating pans
containing different salt concentrations (14, 30, and 47 dS/m) at Peck pond. The agreement
between the measured and the predicted rate is within acceptable limits.
page 3.18
Table 3J2 Daily evaporation rat* from the floating evaporation pans at Peck pond
Date
Pan A (mm/day)
Pan B (mm/day)
Pan 0 (mnVday)
EC = i4dS/m
EC = 14dS/m
EC = 14 dS/m
8/11/89
11.20
9.00
9.60
8/12/89
9.70
11.20
9.90
8/15/89
7.30
7.30
7.90
8/17/89
7.40
7.20
7.80
8/19/89
5.50
7.50
7.00
8/24/89
7.10
8.10
8.60
8/25/89
7.20
5.20
7.90
8/26/89
7.80
8.50
8.10
8/27/89
6.70
7.00
7.30
EC = 14 dS/m
EC = 30 dS/m
EC = 47 dS/m
9/1/89
6.70
6.40
4.70
9/2/89
7.70
6.60
6.30
9/3/89
6.60
6.90
6.50
9/4/89
6.90
6.40
6.30
9/5/89
7.10
6.60
7.50
9/6/89
10.10
13.30
13.30
9/7/89
4.80
1.70
3.60
9/8/89
6.80
6.60
4.20
9/9/89
6.90
7.10
6.80
9/12/89
4.90
na
4.70
9/13/89
5.20
na
4.10
9/14/89
5.30
na
5.20
9/15/89
5.10
na
5.40
9/23/89
5.50
na
3.20
9/24/89
7.00
na
5.70
9/25/89
4.60
na
4.80
9/26/89
4.30
na
4.90
EC = 14 dS/m
EC = 59 dS/m
EC = 90 dS/m
11/2/89
2.10
1.20
2.20
11/3/89
2.20
2.00
1.70
11/4/89
1.60
2.10
2.60
11/5/89
3.20
2.10
2.70
11/6/89
3.54
1.60
2.50
11/7/89
3.40
3.20
3.70
11/8/89
1.00
1.40
1.40
11/9/89
1.80
1.70
1.40
11/10/89
1.80
1.40
1.80
11/11/89
2.20
1.90
1.80
11/12/89
2.40
2.40
1.00
11/13/89
2.10
1.80
2.10
EC values ± 10%
na : Data not available
page 3.19
Table 3.3 Cumulative and hourly evaporation from Peck floating pans (EC = 14 dS'm) for August 1ft-
29, 1989
Date
Time
Elapsed
Pan A
PanB
Average
Pan A
PanB
Average
Hours
(mrrVhr)
(mnVtir)
Pans AS B
cum(mm)
cum. (mm)
PansA&B
8/18/89
1600
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8/18/89
1700
1
0.46
0.16
0.31
0.46
0.16
0.31
8/18/89
1800
2
0.29
0.18
0.24
0.75
0.34
0.55
8/18/89
1900
3
0.53
0.41
0.47
1.28
0.75
1X2
8/18/89
2000
4
0.73
0.39
0.56
2.01
1.14
1.57
8/18/89
2100
5
0.71
0.39
0.55
2.72
1.53
2.13
8/18/89
2200
6
0.75
0.46
0.61
3.47
1.99
2.73
snsm
2300
7
0.59
0.36
0.48
4.06
2.35
3.21
8/18/89
2400
8
0.51
0.32
0.42
4.57
2.67
3.62
8^9/89
100
9
0.36
0.37
0.37
4.93
3.04
3J9
8/19/89
200
10
0.11
0.36
0.24
5.04
3.40
4.22
8/19/89
300
11
0.44
0.34
0.39
5.48
3.74
4.61
8/19/89
400
12
0.39
0.37
0.38
5.87
4.11
4.99
8/19/89
500
13
0.68
0.52
0.60
6.55
4.63
5.59
8/19/89
600
14
0.57
0.60
0.59
7.12
5.23
6.18
8/19/89
700
15
0.48
0.77
0.83
7.60
6.00
6.80
8/19/89
800
16
0.27
0.62
0.45
7.87
6.62
7.25
8/19/89
900
17
0.42
0.57
0.50
8.29
7.19
7.74
8/19/89
1000
18
0.11
0.18
0.15
8.40
7.37
7.89
8/19/89
1100
19
0.00
0.12
0.06
8.40
7.49
7.95
8/19/89
1200
20
0,00
0.04
0.02
8.40
7.53
7.97
8/19/89
1300
21
0.00
0.03
0.02
8.40
7.56
7.98
8AI9/89
1400
22
0.00
0.02
0.01
8.40
7.58
7J99
8/19/89
1500
23
0.00
0.07
0.04
8.40
7.65
6.03
8/19/89
1600
24
0.00
0.11
0.06
8.40
7.76
8.08
8/19/89
1700
25
0.07
0.18
0.13
8.47
7.94
8.21
8/19/89
1800
26
0.16
0.25
0.21
8.63
8.19
8.41
8/19/89
1900
27
048
0.37
0.43
9.11
8.56
8.84
8/19/89
2000
28
0.11
0.23
0.17
9.22
8.79
9.01
8^9/89
2100
29
0.23
0.52
0.38
9.45
9.31
9.38
8/19/89
2200
30
0.39
0.35
0.37
9.84
9.66
9.75
8^9/89
2300
31
0.11
0.36
0.24
995
1.02
5.49
8^9/89
2400
32
0.07
0.37
0.22
10.02
10.39
1021
8/20/89
100
33
0.37
0.45
0.41
10.39
10.84
10J2
8/20/89
200
34
0.91
0.57
0.74
11.30
11.41
11J6
8/20/89
300
35
0.48
0.46
0.47
11.78
11.87
11^
8/20/89
400
36
0.23
0.23
0.23
12.01
12.10
MM
8/20/89
500
37
0.04
0.23
0.14
12.05
12.33
12.19
8^0/89
600
3fi
0.16
0.34
0.25
1221
12.67
1244
8«)/89
700
39
0.21
0.30
0.26
12.42
12.97
12.70
8«)/89
800
40
0.64
0.34
0.49
13.06
13.31
13.19
8/20/89
900
41
0.45
0.80
0.63
13.51
14.11
13J1
8/20/89
1000
42
0.14
0.22
0.18
13.65
14.33
13.99
8/20/89
1100
43
0.14
0.12
0.13
13.79
14.45
14.12
8/20/89
1200
44
0.13
0.14
0.14
13.92
14.59
1426
8/20/89
1300
45
0.21
0.06
0.14
14.13
14.65
14J9
8/20/89
1400
46
0.07
0.07
0.07
1420
1472
14.46
8/20/89
1500
47
0 07
0.19
0.13
1427
14,91
14i9
page 3.20
5»
0
O
ce
a
cs
>
. September
Date
Figure 3.17 Daily evaporation in relation U.
given dates in September, 1989
the salinity level in Peck floating pans and ET during the
page 3.21
I
ee
e
o
s
o
a
' September
Date
Figure 3.18 Trend of daily evaporation in relation to the salinity level in Peck floating evaporation
pans and ET during the given dates in September, 1989
page 3.22
14
9
P
e
I
12
10
■
1
' 1 ■ i ■ t
, ,
•
•
•
1
■
1
<
^^
'f
1
fJ
r. <
\ f
>
! ■
1
1
/
1
llr7
■
u
•
•
I
'
•
4 5
■ September
Date
Figure 3.19 Daily evaporation in relation to the salinity level in Peck evaporation floating pans and
ET for the period Sept. 1 through Sept. 9, 1989
ptige 3.23
10
es
e
o
•9m
s
o
a
ee
>
a UdSIm
♦ 30 dS/m
■ 47 dS/m
• ETo
Date
Figure 3^0
Trend of daily evaporation to the salinity level in Peck evaporation floating pans and ET
for the period Sept. 1 through Sept. 9. 1989
page 3.24
70 —
-^
■ • "
1
60 —
-rt
i
7/
—X-
I
50 —
f\
/
-t
p
40 -
■:
~~Jl /'
o
ft 1 /
g
/// A
0
/?// /
a
/y/ /
ee
/ w /
>
/ /I /
H
30 -
JM~-~-
—
%
T717
■*i
«
9
B
s
o
, ...
20 -
//,
10
J//j^ —
- ( 1 •
D — 14 dS/m
_A. - lOflS/m
D — 47 dS/m
9 — ETo
, 1 . 1 . t . .
o' ' ■
1
2 3
4
Scptemti
Date
5 6 7 8 9
»«r
Figure 3^1
^ ,„i»Hnn to the salinitylevel in Peck floating evaporation pans
Cumulative evaporation in re ahon ^^^f^^^^l^ gg
and ET for the period Sept. 1 through Sept. 9. 1989
page 3.25
I
s
H
1
m
I
r
Time
Figure 3.22 Effect of air temperature on hourly ET^ and average evaporation rates from Peck floating
evaporation pans (EC = 14 dS/m) for the period August 19-20, 1989
e
s.
1
e
e
•a
m
1
<2
Figure 3.23
I Time
Effect of Bolar radiation on hourly ET^ and average evaporation rates from Peck floating
evaporation pane (EC = 14 dS/m) for the period August 19-20, 1989
p€ige 3.26
I
Tir
Figure 3^4 Effect of relative humidity on hourly ET^ and average evaporation rates from Peck float-
ing evaporation pans (EC = 14 dS/m) for the period August 19-20, 1989
£ 3
e
o
S 2
* 1
1
i
Wmd SvXtnH)
Evip. {naoAu)
TnTrrrrrnTnTrnTTTTiT
I
liM
Figure 3^5 Effect of wind speed on hourly ET and average evaporation rates from Peck floating
evaporation pans (EC = 14 dS/m) for the period August 19-20, 1989
page 3.27
I
B
8
O.
s
73
i
I
c
h
O.
U
0
a
>
Time
Figure 3^6 Effect of vapor pressure on hourly ET^ and average evaporation rates from Peck floating
evaporation pans (EC = 14 dS/m) for the period August 19-20, 1989
Augiut
ScpUmber October
month
November
Figure 3J27 Average daily evaporation rate from 14 dS/m Peck floating evaporation pans for four
months in 1989
page 3.28
1.18
-
I '-■- ■• - » -
o
T -r r-
1 I-T . r- 1 . ,-
\ \
..., ,
;
;
1.13
—
—
L.
-
\
\ \
-
O
'_
-^
\
\ \
■
U
_
"- —
\ \
\
_
^ 1.08
—
^^
\ \
\ -
c
o
-
^
-
mH
-
\
\ ^^
-
^ 1.03
—
\
\ "^ ^
—
t.
-
\
\
~^ _
-
c_
"
\
\ \
>•
5 0.9B
_
X
\ \
_
o
-
\
\
\ \
\ \
\ \
-
UJ
0.93
^
^
,
\
\ \
.
-
\
\ \
•
0.88
—
1 • 1 1
\ \ 0 \
. 1 • • . 1 t .
— i-
1
20 40 60
EC of Drainage Water (dS/m)
80
Figure SJ28 Regression of ET_^ correction factor on EC of drainage water
page 3.29
m
5
£
t
e
^*
t
I
m
>
■
•a
£
■
e
0
I
m
>
m
£
t
c
o
V
t
I
Figure 3^9 CEMIS ET^ measured and calculated daily evaporation from Peck floating evaporation
pans with different sabmties using the ET__ correction factor
page 3.30
Figure 3^0
StpUtnbtr, 1»«S
Date
Cumulative CIMIS
floating evaporation pans
ET and measured and calculated daily evaporation from Peck
with different salinities using the ET correction factor
page 3.31
SECTION 4
APPLICATION OF EVAPORATION RATE MODELS
Lntroduction
Evaporation ponds are one means of disposing saline water from tile drains. Physical,
chemical, and biological factors affect evaporation parameters and can either increase or
decrease the efficiency of the ponds. These parameters include air and water temperatiire, solar
radiation, humidity, wind speed and direction, wave action, water color, turbidity, salinity
chemical composition, organic content and water depth. Wind speed, air and water temperature
and water saHnity are the most obvious factors that affect the evaporation rate, where the others
are less clear, yet just as important in the evaporation process.
The water flux to the atmosphere is a physical process and is proportional to the vapor
pressure gradient between the water surface and the air above. A kiiowledge of the effect of
climatic factors on the vapor pressure leads to an estimate of the evaporation rate from the water
surface. Many models have been suggested and tested to estimate the evaporation rate from
water surfaces.
Estimation of Evaporation Rates
Dalton's model (1834) is used widely, and the equation is of the form:
E = %)(es-ea)
where:
E = evaporation rate [L/T]
es = vapor pressure in the film of air next to the water surface [M/T'L^]
ea = vapor pressure in the air above water surface [MJT'U]
K\i) = an empirical coefficient that depend on barometric pressure, wind velocity,
and other factors [T»L* M]
This equation has been used tc calculate the evaporation rate from pure water surfaces
as well as from the floating pan containing saline water (EC = 14 dS/m) at Peck pond. The terms
of the equation are estimated as follows:
• ea is used from CIMIS weather data (Table 4.1)
• es is determined by the Janson (1959) equation as
where:
es = ew (1 - 0.0005373 S)
ew = vapor pressure of pure water obtained from List (1951)
S = the salinity concentration (g/kg)
The values of ew and es are presented in table 4.1. To estimate the wind coefficients,
ftp.), the wind speed and evaporation rate slopes found by Moore and Runkles (1968) are used
to construct new relations between the wind speed and wind coefficient [T'L^/M] (Figure 4.1).
Calculated and measured data are presented in Table 4.1.
The comparison between calculated sind measured evaporation rates at the same elapsed
hour shows some discrepancy (Figure 4.2), while the comparison between the calculated ones at
certain elapsed hours with measured data after 10 hours shows slightly improved agreement
(Figure 4.3). Smoothing the measured data by excluding some of the above-range values led to
good agreement between the calculated and measured data (Figure 4.4). This agreement is due
to the heating time (6-10 hours) needed for water molecules to break the water tension and
escape from the water surface. More data is needed for verification.
page 4.1
I
i!
c
k.
c
o
as
a
»
ai
a
a>
E
t3
C
a
5
m
«
CD
CO
C
CO
u
41
C
•a
c
a
h.
03
I-
3
a
o
a
a
I
S
s
3
<j
-i
o
i
|ii
if
^ 1
1 it
>
O)
00
O)
2
1-H
4^
0)
^
a
e
<
- 1
c
o
^ll
■?
>
X
2L
1-
s
o
5 i s
^
•^
lil
(N
r«^
01
JZ
*" >
•M
1-
c
c:
TS
ill
a
1'^ I
1-
8.
CB
>
4(
^_
0^
.2 fri
c£
«
4^
es
CD
§
CL
Ml
C
1
8
c
c
"a
e
B
■C
i
!
i
s
E
t=
888Z8SSt8S8888
o o o o o o o
o o o o o
tA in c?
^ *n n
S CN 8
0>^^*/»^*/>^n^/>
{!; »
£ "y 8 J?S??S S?8 J? J^ 8 5 9
s~»--Rns
§iliiiiis§i§i
i|?j
Q
» 2. i -
OOOOOOOOOOiO
ooooooodooo
8S8a«238=2a
oooodoooooo
s » ;; » » s
P!8o8::Rftf3SSSSSC2S
oooodooooodooddd
OOdOC3C3C300C3C3^d^^d
?;8882'S?;8Si^2583?a
doooooocDocsod^ood
oo^o^dddooddd
rg-^5»W"«<-)-- — — oocJ-- 2 2
odooddoodc^dc^d
*«
s
eC-ZSSRaSRRR
??iPiil§§§§iiii
po^e 4.2
I
t
Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show the effect of wind speed on evaporation rates. Generally, higher
wind speeds (up to 6 mile/hr) result in greater evaporation . This is because the wind is
preventing the build-up of a diffusion barrier (Moore and Runkles, 1968). Figures 4.7 and 4.8
show the evaporation rate as a function of concentration as affected by wind speed, air
temperature and humidity. At high humidity a smaller vapor pressure difference is present
which in turn reduces the evaporation rate. Salinity decreases the vapor pressure of the film
next to the water surface. Therefore, evaporation decreases as salinity increases. Evaporation
decrease with increasing specific gravity is plotted in Figure 4.9.
Lakshman (1975) studied the influence of wind and water temperature profiles overthe
water surface on evaporation rate using the following Dalton's based formula:
E = N LP-* (es - ea) (1)
where:
and
E is the evaporation in inches/hr
N is the mass transfer coefficient
U is the wind speed in mile/hr
es is saturation vapor pressure in mbar
ea is the vapor pressure of air at 2 m in mbar.
N = [((3.9 X 10^) m«=n/{(m+l)'«(2m+l)o^] (C/2)'^°'(P/A)''2 (2)
where:
m is the wind profile exponent
fi is the thickness of the turbulent boundary layer in meter
P is the perimeter of the water body in feet
A is the water surface in square feet
For smaller bodies of water (e. g. sloughs and small reservoirs), the transfer coefficient
(N) can be simplified to give;
N = (2.62 X 10^) (P/Ay 2 (3)
A comparison between some of the computed (eq. 2) and experimental values of N in the
experiment is in the following table:
Study Area (sq. fl.) N computed N experimental Error
1 Blucher Dugout 6.3 x lO'
2 Lake Hefrier 1.0 x 10»
3 Wascana Lake (1969-1970) 2.3 x 10'
The empirical equations 2 and 3 need to be verified with San Joaquin valley conditions
in which the evaporation rate from the evaporation ponds can be estimated accurately.
1.42 X lO-*
1.5 X 10^
5.30%
9.25 X 10-^
9.74 X 10-*
5.03%
0.879 xlO^
0.964 X 10^
8.80%
page 4.3
*
I
ao7
&06 -
LOS -
JS a(M
u
G
(Ltt3 -
ao:
aoi
«Ud ^wMl wtnl cMtTklcil
(■Ik/kr)
2
i
10
16
(■■/■lwr*kr)
C.019
0.032
•MS
L063
y = 1.2869e-2 + 3.1733e-3x R*2 . 0.999
■■ 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 r-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Wind speed (mile/hr)
Figure 4.1 Wind coefficient in relation to wind speed
EUpMidhn
Figure 42 Calculated evaporation rate from pure water as well as from saline water (EC =14 dS/m)
compared to the measured rate from the saline floating evaporation pan at Peck pond, for
the period August 19-20, 1989
page 4.4
0.6
OJ
0.4
OJ
0.2
0.1 -
0.0
I I I : > I i
CaJculaled evap. from pure water
Calculated evap. from saline water
average measured evaporation
from Ibe saline water
Elapsed hrs
Figure 4.3 Calculated evaporation rate from pure water as well as from saline water (EC =14 dS/m)
comp>ared to the measured rate from the saline floating pwn at Peck pond for the period
August 19-20, 1989 (different data comparison)
0.6
OJ
0.4 -
r- OJ
0.2 J*
0.1
0.0
Elapsed hrs
Figure 4.4 Calculated evaporation rate from pure water as well as from saline water (EC =14 dS/m)
compared to the measured rate from the saline floating pan at Peck pond for the period
August 19-20, 1989 (partially excluded data)
page 4.S
I
A
1.2
1.0
«B
u
u
o.
tfl
«
u
e
§ 0.6
O
>
0.4
0.2-
Y = .0180 X
Coefficient of Determination = 93.24
S^ = 0.3^3
yx
• •
• •
5 10 15 20
Vapor Pressure Difference (millibars)
25
Figure 4JJ Evaporation in relation to vapor pressure difTerences between air and water surface at a
wind speed of 2 miles per hour (Moore and Runkles, 1968)
page 4.6
u
V
a
u
c
c
o
o
>
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6.
0.4
Y = .0294 X
Coefficient of Determination
S^ - 0.716
yx
96.69
• •
-L
5 10 15 20
Vapor Pressure Difference (millibars)
25
Figure 4.6 Evaporation in relation to vapor pressure difference between air and water surface at a
wind speed of 6 miles per hour (Moore and Runkles, 1968)
page 4.7
1.00
,90 -
,80
o
u
O
70
,60 -
,50
.UO
,30
100,000 200,000 300,000
Concentration (parts per million)
Figure 4.7 Relative evapK)ration rate [Evaporation from a saline solution to that of evaporation from
distilled water (EJEJ] in relation to wind speed smd salt concentration at an air
temperature of 76°F and 60% relative humidity (Moore and Runkles, 1968)
page 4.8
1.00
.90 _
.80 -
,70 -
o
u
o
ot:
,60
,50
.40 -
,30
100.000 200,000
Concentration (parts per million)
300,000
Figure 4£ Relative evaporation rate [Evaporation from a saline solution to that of evaporation from
distilled water (E/Eo)] in relation to wind speed and salt concentration at an air
temperature of 76°F and 80% relative humidity (Moore and Runkles, 1968)
page 4.9
4
1001
, _
"
|90
1
Z 80
e
1
leo
c
m- 1 ; 1 ■
1
V
1
9
e
7
6
*>
\
1*0
-
\
5
\
t 40
-
\
.
4
i
• 30
m
• - Evopororior frorr, Bonrtfvillf brmtt
\
5
S
I - Evoporolion from tro»oirr (Bonythor,
I95E]
\
Uo
•
• - Vopor prtnurn over GffOI Soif Loke
(Oickfron ff t 0) • I96S)
bnrvet
\
2
>
Ik;
10
•
\* "
K
0
1 1 '
1
0
s;
1.
DO
1.05 110 (15 120
1 25
1 SO
1
Avtrog» ftp*C(f*c orovtty
Figure 4.9 EfTect of specific gravity on evaporation of brine (LJ. Turk, 1970)
page 4.10
I
SECTION 5
MINERALOGY OF PRECIPITATES
Introduction to Pond Evaporite Mineralogy
This section presents data on evaporite minerals identified by x-ray powder
diffraction CXRPD) analysis. Data on two types of samples are reported: (1) precipitated salts
collected from shorelines in ponds and (2) salts formed within the pond water column. Evaporite
mineral samples were obtained during monitoring trips (1) in the winter of 1987 at Barbizon
pond, (2) winter, spring and fall of 1987 and spring 1988 at Peck pond, and (3) winter and fall of
1987 and spring of 1988 at Pryse pond. The types of minerals precipitated in the water column
are strongly regulated by the initial chemistry of the inflow drainage water and degree of
evapoconcentration. Most of the mineral samples obtained came from shorelines on which salts
precipitated as the pond waterline receded and hence are not predicted by the brine chemistry
model unless the pond water is taken to dryness.
Analytical Procedure
Mineral identification was performed with a Diano XRD 8000 X-ray diffractometer
equipped with a strip chart recorder. Cu K-a radiation was used to determine the diffraction
maxima of the sample. Samples were scanned between 2 and 60' 26. Minerals were identified
using a computer program that converts the 20 values to diffraction spacings and compares the
d-spacings of the sample to known mineral d-spacings. Known mineral diffraction spacings were
compiled from the Mineral Powder Diffraction File, Joint Committee on Powder Diffraction
Standards (JCPDS). All minerals reported had both the 100% intensity peak identified and at
least three d-spacing matches with known minerals. Gypsum I and II, and Loewite I and II
denote identification through differing d-spacings.
The samples have been subjected to a fairly rigorous and thorough analysis. The
minerals identified probably account for 99% of the salt samples. The dominant minerals reflect
the composition of the water as expected for shoreline salts and the wide variety of other
components suggest that evaporite formation is a non-competitive process at the shoreline.
Pond Mineralogy
Table 5.1 presents the evaporite minerals identified in field samples collected from the
shorelines and, when avtiilable, from within the water column of the three ponds. At all three
ponds, halite (NaCl) was the only chloride evaporite identified, nahcolite (NaHCO,) and
nesquehonite (MgC033HjO) were the only carbonate evaporites identified, and arcanite (K,SO^)
and thenardite (NajSO^) were the only sulfate evaporites identified. Other minerals detected
were present in only one or two ponds and not in the third pond.
In Peck pond, the most diversity in evaporites occurred during the winter, after
evaporation had been the greatest and before water was seasonally added to the pond. The least
diversity in evaporites occurred during the spring, after new water (either rainfall or agricultural
drainwater) diluted the pond waters.
Four minerals are ubiquitous in Peck pond: burkeite (Na2C03»2NajSO^), halite (NaCl),
mirabilite (Na,SO/ 10H,O) and thenardite (Na,SO^). Bloedite (Na,S0/MgS0/5H,0), gypsum
(CaS0/2H,0), nahcoHte (NaHCO,) and polyhalite (K,SO/2CaSO/MgSO/2HjO) were iden-
tified in two of the three samplings.
Pryse pond did not follow the same pattern of diversity as at Peck. The most diversity
in Pryse occurred during winter. The least diversity occurred during the fall. One reason for this
might be that Cell 2 does not receive new water right away, hence this cell remains dry longer
than would be expected. When the cell does receive water for dilution, the water comes late in
the season.
Three minerals are ubiquitous in Pryse pond: burkeite, halite, and thenardite. Bloedite,
gypsum, loeweite (2Na,SO/2MgSO/5HjO), mirabilite, nahcolite, polyhalit* and sodium car-
bonate sulfate (NajCOj'Na^SO,) were identified in two of the three samplings.
p€ige S.I
Table 6.1 Evaporite Minerals Identified at Barbizon, Peck and Pryee Evaporation Ponds Between
August 1986 and May 1988.
Evaporite Type/Name
Chemical Formula Barbizon
Peck
Pryse
Borates
Borax
Na,Bp,«10H,O
•
•
Chlorides
Bischofite
MgCl,«2HjO
•
•
Halite
NaCl
•
•
•
Sylvite
KCl
•
Carbonates
Aragonite
X-CaCO,
•
•
Burkeite
Na,C03»2NajSO,
•
•
Calcite
P-CaC03
•
Magnesite
MgC03
•
•
Nahcolite
NaHC03
•
•
•
Nesquehonite
MgC03«3Hp
•
•
•
Soda (Natron)
Na,CO3»10Hp
Sodium Carbonate Sulfate
Na^COj'Na^SO,
•
Trona
Na,C03»NaHC03»2H30
•
•
Tychite
2NajC03 • 2MgS0/ NBjSO^
•
•
•
Sulfates
Arcanite
K,SO,
•
•
•
Bassanite
2CaS0/H,0
•
Bloedite
Na,S0/MgS0/5H,0
•
•
Burkeite
Na,C03«2NajSO,
•
•
Georgeyite
KjSO/5CaSO/HjO
•
•
Glauberite
Na,SO/CaSO,
•
Gypsum I
CaS0/2H,0
•
Gypsum II
CaSO/2HjO
•
•
Kieserite
MgSO/HjO
•
Langbeinite
K,S0/2MgS0,
•
Loewite I
6Na,S0, • 7MgS0, • 15H,0
•
•
Loewite II
2Na,SO/2MgSO/5HjO
•
•
Mirabilite
Na,SO/10H,O
•
•
Polyhalite
K,SO/2CaSO/MgSO/2HjO
•
•
•
Sodium Carbonate Sulfate
Na,C03«Na,S0,
•
Syngenite
K,SO/CaSO/HjO
•
Thenardite
Na,SO,
•
•
•
Tychite
2Na,C03 • 2MgS0/ Na,SO,
•
•
Vanthoffite
3Na,S0/MgS0,
•
•
page 5.2
Most of the minerals ubiquitous at Peck and Pryse evaporation ponds are also found at
Barbizon. Bloedite, gypsum, halite, loeweite, mirabilite, polyhalite and thenardite are the major
evaporite minerals in these ponds. This reflects the fact that the aqueous chemistry of the ponds
are similar.
Differences between the ponds are observed in the evaporites which only form in one of
the ponds. While no quantitative tinalysis was done, the minerals discussed below probably did
not occur in large quantity. Sylvite (KCl) and arcanite (K,S04) were unique at Barbizon. This
reflects the fact that Barbizon evaporation pond has a greater percentage of potassium (of total
cations) than the other ponds.
• Peck had three unique minerals: calcite (CaCO,), georgeyite (K,SO^ • 5CaS0/ H^O) and
syngenite (K,SO/CaSO/HjO). Calcite is a surprise. The other two minerals suggest
that proportion of Mg is low in this pond relative to other ponds, hence fewer evaporites
incorporate Mg. As evapoconcentration occurs, K and Ca precipitate as georgeyite and
syngenite.
• Pryse had several unique minerals: soda [natron] (Na^CO,* lOH^O), anhydrite (CaSO^),
bassanite (2CaSO/HjO), glauberite (NajSO/CaSO,) and langbeinite
(KjS0/2MgS0p. Soda is probably a result of biologically increased partial pressure
of carbon dioxide. At the time soda was identified, five other carbonate or bicarbonate
minerals were also identified. Anhydrite and bassanite seem to be occurring instead
of gypsum. The hypersaline conditions of Pryse may increase the solubility of gypsum.
As seawater is concentrated, glauberite precipitates, so this mineral is not unexpected.
Glauberite would probably occur in other ponds if they were as saline as Pryse.
• Of all the minerals identified, only two minerals (halite and thenardite) were found
in all ponds.
Salts which precipitate in the pore waters at the sediment-water interface and the
overlying water column have also been collected. The morphologies between water column and
shoreline salts are easily distinguishable most likely because of the different forms that result
from one sample being constantly submerged while the other possibly dries out. Such
morphological differences, while indicating mineralogical differences, do not necessarily trans-
late into compositional differences. For instance, while thenardite (Na,SO^) and mirabilite
(Na^SO^ • lOHjO) are two different minerals, they comprise the same number of moles of Na and
SO per mole of the mineral and differ only in the hydration status. The dehydration of mirabilite
yields thenardite, and this occurs simply by leaving mirabilite in free air.
In general, water column samples form much larger crystals and eventually coalesce into
salt slabs. This is in contrast to the shoreline salts which are powdery and fine. Shoreline salts
generally form as a result of wetting and drying along the shore as a result of wave action and
are usually of the dehydrated form. Salts forming this way may then be wind-blown further up
the bank and hence avoid redissolution.
A Note Concerning Mineralogic Nomenclature
Typically, the number of moles of an element in a mole of mineral is expressed as a lump
sum. For example, the common mineral thenardite has the chemical formula Na^SO^ and is
composed of two moles of Na and one mole of SO,. Likewise, minerals with more than two
components such as glauberite are usually found in reference materials such as the JCPDS
Mineral Powder Difraction File as Na,Ca(SO,)j. However, for the purpose of stressing the point
that these are mixed salts rather than entirely unique minerals, they are being expressed as
combined simple salts so that, for example, glauberite is given the chemical formula
Na,SO/CaSO,. Water (H^O) is not considered to be a simple salt and is always expressed in
combination with a mineral (e.g., mirabilite, Na,SO/ lOH^O).
page 5.3
SECTION 6
TRACE ELEMENT ACCUMULATION IN POND WATERS
Introduction
During the evaporation of agricultural drainage waters from evaporation ponds, the
solutes are separated from their solvent, water. Some solutes are subject to solute transport
which physically carries them away from the evaporation pond usually to the groundwater table,
but the distribution of the majority of solutes is due to chemical partitioning. The chemical
partitioning of a solute is related to its suite of reaction mechanisms and relative reactivity. The
elevated concentrations created by evapoconcentration is conducive to driving many reactions.
For some reactions, however, a favorable concentration gradient may not be enough.
This set of calculations investigates the general reactivities of certain solutes (arsenic,
selenium, boron and molybdenum) which have been highlighted as priority toxicants. Their
reactivities are referenced against chloride ions which are assumed to be non-reactive conservative
constituents of the evaporation pond waters. Though the study does not pinpoint specific
reactions, it is important to determine which solutes causing toxic concern arebeing retained in
the water column and hence, pose an exposure risk to wildlife and waterfowl.
Evapoconcentration
This is the term given to the process by which the ratio of solute to water solvent is
increased by the removal of the solvent and retention of the solute. The change in the ratio is
termed the Evapoconcentration Factor (ECF) and may be calculated for changes over time or
progressive cells.
ECF Formulae
The ECF formulae have been derived to provide an estimate of the levels of an element
in reference to chloride which is assumed to be a non-reactive component of the solution.
Figure 6.1 shows the equations that are used to calculate predicted values. The Time-
Dependent ECF (TDECF) applies to changes in the degree of salinity which occur over time. The
Multi-Cell ECF (MCECF) applies to differences in the degree of salinity which occur in multi-cell
evaporation ponds. The notation m^^ generally represents molar concentration (M) but if the
volume of water is assumed constant, then it may be expressed in number of moles.
Calculations with the TDECF and MCECF which are reported here are applied to data
obtained between fall 1986 and summer 1988. By virtue of the assumptions in building the
formula, the TDECF calculation only provides values which are independent of conditions in-
between the two time points of interest. In contrast, the MCECF calculation utilizes averaged
data over the time period of interest. Although Pryse comprises two cells, the second cell was
saturated with respect to solid phases too often to allow the assumption of non-reactive chloride
ions. Hence, the MCECF formula was applied only to Peck pond.
(1) Time-Dependent ECF
(2) Multi-Cell ECF
ECFd)
%«..«
= ECF(t) X m^djj)
m
ECF(n)
Cl,n
m.
m
predpcn
Cl,n=0
= ECF(n) X m
x/i=£)
Figur« 6.1. Formulae for calculating predicted concentrations during evapoconcentration.
(n = cell number, 7 = element of interest, t = time)
pttge 6.1
Verification Example for Time-Dependent ECF Formula
The conditions shown in figure 6.2 have been met satisfactorily at all three evaporation
ponds studied. The example above shows that if the inflow ClTVace Element Ratio is not the
same as the pond water ratio (case B), the increase cannot be expressed in an ECF which would
preclude the use of ECFs as a prediction tool. In contrast, the increase due to inflow addition (case
A) can be described by an ECF (case C) meaning that deviations in observed values from the ECF-
predicted values can be interpreted as reactivity of the trace element.
Conditions for Time Dependent ECF
• Ratio of CI to TE in inflow water must approximate that in the
receiving waters
• Ratio of CI to TE in inflow water must be approximately constant
over the time period of interest
A.
1000
10
AddlOOCI.ITE
1100
11
In case B, the TE appears to
have decreased in proportion
to the CI while, in fact, both of
the constituents have been
conserved.
B.
1000
10
Add 500 CI, 1 TE
1500
11
In case A where the inflow
water CI to TE ratio is the
same as that in the receiving
water, the change In CI and
TE can be reflected bv an
C.
1000
10
ECF = 1.1
1100
11
ECF factor as shown in case
C.
Figure 6JJ. Conditions necessary for Time-I>ependent ECF calculations.
Example Calculation Using TD-ECF
An example calculation usingtheTD-ECFisdonehereusingthefollowingparameters:
Initial Conditions
Date 11/15/86
[CI] 17,500 mg/1
[B] 43.18 mg/1
Final Conditions
8/9/88
139,133 mg/1
237.2 mg/1
TDECF =
[ai
[Ql
'final ^ 139,133 ^ ^
initial
17,500
95
ptige 6.2
[B] ^^ , = TDECF * [B], .^ ,
predicted initial
= 7.95* 43.18 mga
= 343.30 mgf\
The above calculation demonstrates the use of the TDECF formulae in the calculation
of a predicted boron concentration for Pryse CELL 2 SE. The calculated result for this example
is shown on the appropriate chart in figure 6.5. The primary variables in this calculation are the
initial and final dates because these are what determine the ECF value.
Extended Application of TDECF
The results presented in this report focus on the changes in pond water concentrations
between the initial and final sampling dates. However, a more extensive approach is possible
by altering the final date used in the TDECF calculation. An example of this extension is shown
in the figure below in which lL/15/86 is retained as the initial date, and the TDECF calculation
is performed on data firom Pryse Cell 2 SE.
400
E
300 -
c
o
^ 200
CO
c
0)
o
c
o
o
c
o
o
CD
100
0
Observed [B]
Predicted [B]
00
in
00
00
in
CO
00
o
00
CO
^—
in
CO
00
00
00
o
CNI
in
Figure 6.3. Results of TD-ECF Calculation for Pryse Cell 2 SE using multiple final dates.
Figure 6.3 indicates that B is well conserved through the seasons with the exception of
the summer 1988 case in which the concentration is many times higher than previous values.
page €.3
i
Results
TDECF: The results of the analysis for As, Se, B and Mo are shown in figures 6.4 and
6.5. Arsenic is clearly very reactive (indicated by values less than the limit of quantitation)
especially at Barbizon and Peck ponds. Selenium (not detected at Barbizon pond) is slightly less
than predicted at Peck pond. The peculiar comparison that is portrayed at Pryse pond probably
arises from physical fluxes of Se rather than chemical fluxes. Boron is generally non-reactive
and is predicted fairly well by the TDECF. The TDECF calculation also indicates that Mo is
reactive for the selected conditions.
For the TDECF formula to be valid, one assumption that needs to be approximately true
is that the ratio of chloride to solute be the same at both instances of time (i.e., initial and final).
This has been verified with a maximum change in the ratio to be 69%. Since no change is
unreasonable to expect, that value of 69% is deemed acceptable given the objectives of the
calculation.
MCECF: The calculations for Peck pond (figure 6.6) generally support the observations
of the TDECF results. However, molybdenum clearly shows non-reactive behaviour which
suggests that it tends to leave and return to the water column according to season. Further
calculations using fall dates as initial and final time points should be able to verify this. Finally,
the prediction of boron appears to be excellent. There is a high level of confidence in these results
because they correspond well with the results that were previously calculated for a single year
(Fall 1986 to Summer 1987).
Conclusions
The evapoconcentration factors may be used in predicting solute concentrations assuming
that the solute exhibits non-reactive behaviour. Deviations from the predicted trend may be
taken as indications of reactivity. The actual significance of the deviations depends on the data
set used in the calculations.
Boron has been found to accumulate in the water column whereas selenium appears to
undergo a partial removal from the water column. Arsenic tends not to accumulate in the water
column while molybdenum undergoes a cycle of removal and restoration according to seasons.
page 6.4
020
& S
T- CM CO irt
S § S 1
•^ CM eo ift
I 5 S 1
Figure 6.4. Predicted (□) and observed( - )conc.ntrations of ar^e^c and sele^^^^^
right) Barbizon, Peck and Pryse evaporation ponds. The TDECF method .8 used.
page 6.5
S 8 3
Si & & &
»- evj CO ui
S & & 8
Fiirure 6J> Predicted ( D ) and observed ( ■ ) concentrations of boron and molybdenum for (from lea
Figure 6J.. J^e^c^c^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^ evaporation ponds The TDECF method ,b used.
page €.6
E_
c
S.
I
i
o
o
E
c
o
o
5 ^ CM CO «r »«
s "o) ^ 7 ^ a>
c o o o o o
5 •»- Ol CO ^ _
C o o o o o
5 »- CVJ CO ^ »«
= ^ T5 "5 ^ o>
c o o o o o
5 T- c«j CO ^
^ ^ ^ *a> o *>
c o o o o o
Fipire 6.6. Predicted ( O ) and
observed ( • ) concentrations of arsenic, selenium, boron and
.molybdenum for Peck evaporation pond. The MCECF method .s usee
page 6. 7
SECTION 7
TRACE ELEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH EVAPORITES
Introduction
Trace element concentrations in evaporite minerals forming in agricultural evaporation
ponds were examined by dissolving and analyzing evaporite minerals collected from Peck Pond
cells 2 and 3. The mineralogy of the salt crusts was found to be dominated by thenardite, a Na^SO^
mineral. The evaporites displayed a number of differing morphologies including fine-grained,
slabs, and large crystals.
Methodology
The elemental compositions of 7 representative evaporite deposits were determined by
dissolving 1 gram of the mineral in lOOmL of distilled deionized water. The evaporites were
observed to dissolve completely except for a dark colored residue consisting of particulate organic
material which was present in some of the samples. The solutions were all filtered through a 0.45
^m membrane filter prior to chemical analysis. The chemical analyses for the dissolved salts are
shown in Table 7. 1.
Molybdenum was analyzed using a Perkin -Elmer 2100 Graphite Furnace (GFAAS) with
deuterium background corrector and a palladium hydroxylamine matrix modifier. Prior to
analysis, samples were acidified to pH 2 using nitric acid. To ensure accurate performance of the
instrument, replicate samples were run every ten samples eind recovery tests every twenty
samples (Loya, 1989). Arsenic and selenium were analyzed by Hydride Vapor Generation Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotometry (HVGAAS), while boron was analyzed using Inductively Coupled
Plasma Spectrophotmetry (ICPS).
Results
Sodium and sulfate were the major chemical constituents comprising the salts which
confirm the results of the x-ray diffraction analysis. To examine if the trace elements become
enriched or depleted in the solid-phase versus their concentration in the pond waters, the ratio
of SO^ to trace elements in both the solid-phase and solution-phase were plotted (Figure 7.1). The
chemical composition of the solution phase was taken as the mean concentrations in Peck Pond
Cell 2 SE. The diagonal line shown in Figure 7.1 represents chemical compositions where the
ratio of SO^ to trace element in both the solid phase and solution phase are equal. Above this Une
is a region where the solid phase is depleted relative to the solution phase. Below this line, the
trace element is enriched in the sohd phase relative to the solution phase. The diagram shows
that As, B and Se are depleted in the solid-phase, while Mo concentrations were nearly equal,
to slightly enriched in the solid-phase.
Table 7.1 Trace elements associated with pond evaporites (values in nmolea/L)
Fine Salt
SO,
76,251
Se
0.61
As
B
Mo
DOC
Na
Ca
Mg
K
a
Peck 2
0.33
200
43
3,239
119.226
4,620
6,560
290
6,310
Peck 2
Si^
88.115
0.04
0.52
92
20
439
161,005
237
897
139
4,972
Peck
Long
89,673
0.04
0.25
57
17
179
156,929
14
740
243
3.787
Peck
S\ab
86.237
0.11
0.11
273
37
770
157,439
445
2,601
176
11,144
Peck
Long
87,255
0.16
0.08
121
23
370
160,496
267
880
252
4,659
Peck 3
Sl^
92,102
0,43
0.04
24
5
335
166,101
158
610
1
499
Peck 3
Cfydais
87,398
0.08
0.07
70
8
663
144.701
3,519
400
1
3,021
Peck2SE
Walef
135,858
7.22
641
1,471
10.2
6,083
297,565
12,444
14,568
818
75,430
piige 7.1
These results represent only one pond and one type of evaporite mineral (thenardite)
and therefore the results of these preliminary studies should not be extrapolated to other sites.
More work is currently underway to determine the mechanisms responsible for the distribution
of trace elements between the solution and solid phases. Future studies will be expanded to
include different evaporite minerals from a number of different locations.
O
Q
o
10'
10'
10-
10* :
10^
10'
O S04/Se
• S04/B
D SO4/M0
A S04/AS
SOLID PHASE
"DEPLETED IN
TRACE ELEMENT
i
DISTRIBUTION
COEFRCIENT r 1
O^
o
A
o
SOLID PHASE
ENRICHED IN
TRACE ELEMENT
10
lO'' lo-"
SOLUTION PHASE RATIO
10*
10-
Figure 7.1 Trace Elements Associated with Evaporites from Evaporation Ponds
page 7.2
SECTION 8
MAGNITUDE OF SALT LOAD
Introduction
In the previous interim report (Tanji and Grismer, 1989), a brine chemistry
model (C-Salt) was utilized to simulate the sequence and quantities of salts precipitating
as pond waters are evapoconcentrated up to a 50-fold decrease in volume. This report
takes another approach in assessing the magnitude of salts accumulating in
evaporation ponds. The primary data used herein are from the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board (Westcot et al., 1988) and the Department of Water
Resources (1988) that were summarized in the interim report.
Unit Values
The 27 evaporation ponds have a total pond surface area of about 7,070 acres
annually receive about 31,900 ac-fl of subsurface drainage from about 56,500 acres of tile-
drained fields containing about 810,000 tons of salts (TDS). These data are transformed
into unit values as follows:
unit tile effluent = ^^ yin^"^^*" = 4.51 ft/yr (8.1)
7 070 ac
The unit tile effluent is the average annual surface depth of drainwater disposed
into the ponds.
unit pond surface = -g -^^ — = 0.125 (8.2)
56 500 ac
The unit pond surface is the acres of pond surface for each acre of tile-drained
field.
unit field drainage = ^^ 56 500 a^^' = ^'^^ ac-fVac-yr (8.3)
The unit field drainage is the average annual quantity of subsurface drainage
water collected from the fields and disposed into ponds.
. „^^ ^ _ , , 810 OOP tons/yr , . o * / ro a\
unit TDS from fields = — rg con o^ = ^"^-^ tons/ac-yr (8.4)
56 500 ac
This unit TDS is the average annual quantity of salts collected in the tile
effluents from the fields.
810 000 tons/yr nc a i i t\ lo c\
unit TDS into ponds, concentration basis = s^gooac-fVyr ^ tons/ac-ft (8.5)
This unit TDS gives the average annual salt accumulation discharged into the
ponds.
, , . 810 OOP ton&/>T ,,C4 / /fi c^
unit TDS into ponds, weight basis = q q-jq ^c ^ tons/ac-yr (8.6)
This unit TDS is the average annual weight of salts discharged into the ponds.
page 8.1
Magnitudes Discharged into Ponds
The 31,900 ac-ft/yr of subsurface drainage discharged into ponds is nearly 1.9
times the 17,000 ac-fVyr of groundwater discharged from drains in the Grasslands
Subarea into the San Joaquin River (CH2M HILL, 1988). The 810,000 tons/yr of TDS
disposed into ponds is about 5.8 times the 139,400 tons/yr of TDS in the ground water
discharged from drains in the Grassland Subarea into the San Joaquin River. CH2M
HILL (1988) gives smother estimate of 743,800 ton&'yr disposed into ponds.
The 810,000 tons/yr of TDS disposed in ponds is about 26% of the estimated
3,100,000 tons/yr of salt accumulation in the San Joaquin Valley's west side (CH2M
HILL, 1988).
In addition, the quantities of trace elements disposed into ponds are about 595
tons/yr of boron, 4,340 Ibs/yr of selenium, 7,900 Ibs/yr of arsenic, and 44 tons/yr of
molybdenum.
Accumulation in Ponds
As noted in the interim report, the average measured seepage rate from the
evaporation ponds is about 1.0 ac-ff ac-yr.
Net Volume Evaporated = 31 900 ac-ft/yr - (1.0 ac-ft/yr )(7 070 ac) (8.7)
= 24 830 ac-ft/yr
This annual net volume of water evaporated in the ponds is about 77.8% of the
total drainage influent if seepage losses are accounted for.
Net TDS Accumulation = g'^i 9 qq g^'.^y^ 810 000 tons/yr = 630 500 tons/yr (8.8)
This is the annual net weight of salts accumulating in the ponds when seepage
losses are considered.
In order to estimate the volume of TDS accumulating in the pond, density of the
salt precipitates must be assumed. Because the pond waters are predominantly of the
Na2S04 -type water, thenardite (Na2S04) is the principal evaporite mineral formed in
these ponds. The density of pure crystalline thenardite is 2.66 g/cm (Sonnenfeld, 1984)
The density of other predominant evaporites identified in the salt deposits are 2.71 g/cm
for calcite (CaCOa), 2.32 g/cm^ for gypsum (CaS04»2H20), and 2.23 g/cm for bloedite
(Na2S04»MgS04»5H20).
Assuming a density of 2.66 g/cm^ for salts precipitated in ponds, the annual
volume of salts accumulating is estimated to be about 164,500 cubic yds or an average
deposition thickness of 0.17 in/yr.
In contrast, simulation runs by C-Salt as given in the interim report assumed
that the density of precipitated minerals to be identical to the calculated density of the
brine from which precipitation took place. The density of the brines when precipitation
was occurring ranged from less than 1.1 to 1.4 g/cm as pond waters were
evapoconcentrated 50-fold. This lower density is more representative of the shoreline
salt deposits. , , /• ,
Assuming a density of 1.28 g/cm"" gives an estimated annual volume of salt
accumulation of about 342,000 cubic yds or an average deposition thickness of 0.36 in/yr.
The above range of estimates on annual salt deposition in ponds indicate huge
amounts available for possible salt harvesting or for disposal. The potential for
commercial salt harvesting is, however, constrained by the evel of punty, distance t^
the market and economics of worldwide markets (Personal communication E. Lee).
Moreover the presence of toxic elements such as selenium, arsenic, boron, molybdenum
and uranium may constrain how these salts are to be ultimately disposed.
page 8.2
d
SECTION 9
RECOMMENDED DESIGN AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Introduction
Many factors affect the evaporation and precipitation rate in evaporation ponds. As
some of these factors are not readily changeable, evaluation of each factor's manageability (or the
degree to which the factor can be controlled) to accelerate evaporation and precipitation is
addressed. Although evaporation and precipitation are inter-related, they are evaluated
separately in finding manageablility factors. These factors will eventually be combined when
recommending the design and best management practices for evaporation ponds.
Factors Which Affect the Evaporation Rate
Table 9.1 shows factors which affect the evaporation and those factors which are
manageable to increase the evaporation rate. Net radiation, salinity and color of effluents can
be controlled by specifying design and management practices.
Table 9.1 Evaporation rat« factors and manageability
EVAPORATION RATE FACTORS MANAGEABLE FACTORS
O Climatic property O Climatic property
Net Radiation Net Radiation
Humidity
Air Temperature
Wind Velocity and Direction
C Water Property <" Water Property
Salinity Salinity
Color Color
Temperature
Chemical Composition
Turbidit>'
Net Radiation .
Net radiation is defined as the difference between the amount of solar radiation which
reaches the earth's surface, and the amount of refiect^d and reradiated radiation. Evaporation
rate is calculated using the energy balance and Bowen ratio;
E = ^^ (1)
Ul + B)
E = evaporation
R = net radiation
S = heat stored in water
L = latent heat of water vaporization
B = Bowen ratio
page 9.1
According to equation (1), if the absorbed net radiation in solution, R^^, increases, the
evaporation rate will also increase. To increase the absorption of solar radiation in ponds, a dye
such as 2-Naphthol Green is often used.
Bonython (1965) compared evaporation rates between undyed and dyed salt ponds. At
Dry Creek in South Australia during the 1948-1949 summer season, 58 acres of dyed salt-
crystallizing ponds were compared with 87 acres of undyed ponds supplied saturated brine.
Results showed that crystallization of salt in dyed ponds was 15-20% more than in undyed ponds.
This indicates that the use of dye contributes significantly to increasing evaporation rates and
the subsequent precipitation of salts.
Salinity
Salinity is directly related to seasonally variable drainage volume. Tanji and Grismer
(1989) showed that in the San Joaquin Valley, the water volume in evaporation ponds is high
during winter due to pre-plant irrigation and rainfall, and is low in late summer and fall because
evaporation rate exceeds drainage drainage input. Therefore, salinity is high in summer and
low in winter.
Evaporation decreases with increasing salinity as this and many other studies have
shown (Bonython, 1965; Janson, 1959; Moore and Runkles, 1968; Salhotra et al., 1959). In
addition, salt crusts may form on the water surface with increasing evapoconcen tration resulting
in a reduction of evaporation rate (Adams, 1934). Adequate design and management should thus
aim at keeping salinity sufficiently low or removing salt crusts to maintain a reasonable
evaporation rate.
To achieve an adequate evaporation rate, the evaporation ponds should be divided into
several cells so that waters can be separated according to their salinity range. The water wiUi
the lowest salinity should be directed into the first cell and, as evapoconcentration proceeds, it
should be conducted to other cells.
Ormat Process
Ormat Engineering, Inc, is advancing the Ormat process to enhance evaporation rat«s
of dilute brines. This process is used to concentrate Dead Sea brine for minerals recovery in Israel
and is also being demonstrated in a USER project to recover energy ft-om solar ponds at El Paso,
Texas.
The patented Ormat process involves pumping dilute brine through a large number of
nozzles at a height of 30 meters so that the saline water is in contact with dry air. Due to
proprietary constraints, details on the Ormat process are not completely known. This process
appears to have a high initial capital investment and high operating cost. A potential problem
exists of salt drift to adjacent lands.
Holor of Solution ™r. j i i. i
The color of solution affects the degree of net radiation absorption. The darker the color
of the solution, the higher the absorption of net radiation. As mentioned earlier, the dye 2-
Napthol Green is commonly used to alter the color.
{Suit Precinitation u • i
Precipitation of evaporites is a function of ion activities , solution temperature, chemical
composition and pH. Each factor depends on several interacting variables which interact not
only with each other but also with evaporation rate. For example, water temperature is
dependent on absorption of net radiation, latent heat transfer and sensible heat transfer.
Generally speaking, if water temperature is high, more minerals are dissolved due to an mcrease
in the solubility product and the evaporation rate decreases. As far as the efficiency of
evaporation ponds is concerned, the manageable factor affecting evaporation rate and salt
precipitation is solute concentration and salinity. , ^ , > ..
Precipitation of salts usually occurs when the ion activity product of solutes exceeds the
solubility product of a particular mineral. When evapoconcentration of pond waters causes
page 9.2
precipitation, the salts may either form a surface-covering crust or suspended particles which
settle and accumulate on the pond bottom.
Since salt crusts on the surface of the pond reduce the evaporation rate significantly,
surface salt crusts should be minimized or removed to ensure maximum efficiency of the
evaporation.
One method of removing salt crusts might be to control the flow of effluent using gates
between adjacent cells. If differences in water level are maintained throughout cells, salt crust
can be removed through addition of effluent from a more dilute cell.
Another suggestion is to carry out salt removal during the night because cooler
temperatures generally decrease the solubility product and hence, more salts will be available
for removal by some mechanical means.
Sadan Proposal
Abraham Sadan and Cominco Ltd has a patent (Swinkel et al., 1986) to separate and
purify salts in a non-convective solar pond. They contend that a brine consists of combinations
ofhigher hydrated and lower hydra ted or anhydrous forms of salts. The patent claims that under
saturated conditions it is possible to crystallize salt in a higher hydrated form, dehydrate it to
a lower hydrated form in a non-convective solar pond, and recover the salt from the bottom of a
pond in solid, pure form essentially free from other salts in the brine.
Sadan (Sadan, 1987) presented to the Westlands Water District a proposal to recover
high purity anhydrous Na^SO^ using an example of reducing 8,000 ac-fi/yr of tile effluents to
14.25 ac-fl (52,000 tons) of anhydrous Na^SO^, 4.25 ac-fl (12,000 tons) of NaCl and 20.0 ac-ft
(36, OCX) tons) of MgCl, bitterns. The proposal requires a 1,500 acre preconcentration pond from
which CaCOj and CaSO^»2HjO would precipitate leaving 180 ac-fl of concentrated brine. The
brine goes to a 16 acre deca pond in which Na^SO^'lOHjO (mirabilite) would precipitate out
leaving a sulfate brine of 80 ac-fl. A 16 acre winter cooling pond is also required in which
Na^SO^'lOHjO would precipitate and dissolve. The cooled brine of 50 ac-fl is transferred to a
12 acre pond to precipitate NaCl. The remaining 20 ac-ft of bitterns is stored in a 36 acre non-
convective pond from which Na,SO^ may precipitate.
In the above process, selenium was assumed to remain in the dissolved state and
evapoconcentrate in the brines. The example given estimated Se would increase from 0.31 to
15.08 mg/liter in the preconcentration pond, from 15.08 to 33.46 mg/liter in the deca pond, from
33.46 to 53.89 mg/liter in the winter cooling pond, and from 53.89 to 136.20 mg/liter.
Our assessment is that the process outlined above would require extremely close controls
on salinity levels to preferentially precipitate out Na^SO/ lOH^O, NaCl and Na,SO^. This may
be possible in an industrial processing plant but probably not in agricultural evaporation ponds.
Moreover, the assumption that Se would evapoconcentrate in a conservative manner and not be
reactive is contrary to our observations in evaporation ponds.
Best Design to Sustain Evaporation Rate and Precipitation
Although the current design of evaporation ponds is based on United States Department
of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service (1982) design criteria, the best design considered here
is based on having the highest efficiency and the least detrimental effect on the environment. The
best design will take into account the suggestions mentioned previously.
Size
Evaporation ponds should have enough capacity to satisfy the maximum storage
expected or total inflow minus the total outflow.
Total inflow = drainage from the field
+ rainfall
+ perimeter drainage (drainage collected by interceptor drain)
Total outflow = evaporation -t- seepage
pagt 9.3
In the San Joaquin Valley, water levels in evaporation ponds change seasonally . They
are typically high in winter and low in summer (Tanji and Grismer, 1989). Since the capacity
of the evaporation ponds have to satisfy the highest water level to avoid overflow to adjacent
areas, pond capacity has to be determined using the highest water inflow rather than the yearly
averaged value. Pond volume must also be calculated to deal with major storm events and
prolonged high rainfall years.
Shape
The major factor influencing the shape of an evaporation pond is the environmental
impact. Since wildlife are attracted to evaporation ponds, the reduction of shoreline (the
reduction of access to contaminated water) is desirable. Although the circular shape poses the
least shoreline per unit area compared to square and rectangular shapes, the circular shape
would not make efficient use of land because most fields are rectangular in shape. If land wasted
is not a constraint, the circular shap>e is the best option environmentally. Otherwise, the square
shape is recommended since the shoreline per unit area is less than that of rectangular shapes
(Department of Water Resources, 1988).
Depth J V- o
According to the Department of Fish and (^me the recommended minimum depth is 2
feet to discourage wildlife use. Bonython (1965) found that the variation with depth can be
virtually neglected evaluating the result of Ferguson (1952) and Block etal., (1951). Ferguson
has shown that evaporation in a pond with a depth of 40 inches is 4 % less than a 6 inch deep pond,
and the evaporation from a 1 inch deep pond is 4 % greater than a 6 inch deep pond. Thus, the
influence of depth on evaporation may be largely ignored.
Cells
As explained in the previous sections, cells contribute to maximizing evaporation and
salt precipitation by allowing mixing of waters to control solute concentrations. Cells with gates
are essential for regulating solute concentrations and thus maximizing efficiency of evaporation
ponds.
Embankment
The current design based on the specification of the Department of Agriculture-Soil
Conservation Service is adequate relative to evaporation but not to discourage wildlife usage.
The current design criteria include:
Top width At least 14 feet
Freeboard 1.6 feet or the maximum wave ramp
Inside Slope 6:1
Outside Slope 2:1
T.inintT and Intprcentx)r Drain • ,, /• ui r
Impermeable linings such as concrete and asphalt are not economically feasible for
evaporation ponds. Tanji and Grismer (1989) estimated that seepage from a typical San Joaquin
Valley evaporation pond is approximately 1 foot per year using existing soil materials for a pond
bottom. Interceptor drains would be desirable to reduce contamination of groundwater ftx)m
seepage. Tanji et al. (1985) suggested installation of tile drains underneath ponds instead of
around the perimeter and pumping seepage back into evaporation ponds.
Best Management Options
Possible management options to sustain evaporation and precipiUtion rates include:
1 Use of green dyes to increase evaporation.
2. Monitor the salinity of eflHuent to each cell to determine when effluent should be
transferred to a higher concentration cell.
page 9.4
3. Remove salt crusts periodically.
4. Prevent the complete drying out of evaporation ponds or pond cells. As there is
some uncertainty as to whether the periodic drying out of ponds reduces biota
and hazards to wildlife, further research needs to be carried out. Until these
uncertainties are addressed, evaporation ponds should not be dried out (Depart-
ment of Water Resources, 1988). Also, during the drying phase, more wildlife
may have access to contaminated water.
5. Use blue-green algae to seal the pond bottoms instead of interceptor drains to
minimize seepage. It has been reported that 3-12 months after applying blue-
green algae, complete sealing occurs in salt- producing ponds. Although the cost
of algae treatment is less than interceptor drains, the effectiveness is still
undetermined (Department of Water Resources, 1988).
6. Consider ORMAT, an evaporation enhancement system. ORMAT is designed to
increase the evaporation rate of water by reducing the water to fine droplets. The
total surface area of droplets is greater than a surface water body of the same
volume of water. This, in turn, leads to an increase in the rate of evaporation.
Since a higher rate of evaporation is achieved, smaller ponds would be required.
ORMAT is commercially used in Israel and has been utilized in the U. S.
(Bradford et al., 1989b). Since performance information concerning ORMAT is
limited, the efficiency in increasing evaporation ratesof water is not known. In
addition, a high cost of set-up and operation could hinder widespread applica-
tion.
7. Use Iron Sulfide (FeS^) Sealing. Paul and Clark (1989) stated that Soviet
workers found that a buried layer of straw approximately 15 cm thick covered
with another 15 cm of soil results in the sealing of soils under ponds by means
of a gleying reaction (decay of organic matter resulting in the reduction of Fe**
to Fe^* and SO^' to S^ . As a result of that reaction, FeS^ is precipitated and soil
colloids peptize. This procedure is inexpensive, and might be used in reducing
or preventing seepage leading to contamination of groundwater.
Constraints
The above best management options and design features may be overridden by consid-
erations to make evaporation ponds least attractive to wildlife and reduce potential contaminant
hazards to wildlife.
page 9.5
I
SECTION 10
REFERENCES
Adams, T. C. 1934. Evaporation from Great Salt Lake. Amer. Meteorol. Sex. Bull. 15(2): 35-39.
Backlund, V. L. and R. R. Hoppes. 1984. Status of soil salinity in California. California
Agriculture., 38(10): p. 89
Block, M. R., L. Farkas, and K. S. Spiegler. 1951. Solar Evaporation of Salt Brines. Ind. Eng.
Chem. 43(7): 1544-1553
Bonython, C. W. 1956. The Influence of Salinity Upon the Rate of Natural Evaporation. Acid
Zone Research, Vol. 2: pp. 65-71.
Bonython, C. W. 1965. Factors determining the rate of solar evaporation in the production of
salt. 2nd Northern Ohio Geological Society Symposium on sa\i,Northem Ohio Geological
Society. Clevelsmd, Ohio.
Bradford, G. R., D. Bakhtar, L. J. Lund, and A. D. Brown. 1989a. In TTf^Ralinitv/Drainaf^eTask
Force: 1988-89 Technical Progress Report. Division of ANR, University of California,
September 1989, pp. 76-80.
Bradford, D. F., D. Drezner, J. D. Shoemaker, and L. Smith. 1989b. Experimental approaches
and facilities for testing methods to minimize the contamination hazards to wildlife using
agricultural evaporation ponds. Department of Water Resources- contract number
STCA/DWR B57339.
CH2MHILL. 1988. San Joaquin Valley Hydrologic and Salt Load Budgets. Prepared for the San
Joaquin Valley Drainage Program under U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Contract No. 7-CS-
20-05210 Order No. 8-PD-20-05210/003, Modification 003. 22 pp.
Dalton, J. 1834. Meteorological observations and essays (2nd edition)
Department of Water Resources. 1988. Agricultural drainage evaporation ponds in the San
Joaquin Valley. Progress of the Investigation, Memorandum Report, October, 1988.
pp. 73-85.
Ferguson, J. 1952. The rate of natural evaporation from shallow ponds. Aus^ Joum. Sci. Res.
5(2): pp. 315-330
Janson. L. 1959. Evaporation from Salt Water in Arid Zones. Trans. Royal Inst. Tech..
Stockholm, Sweden. No. 137. 13 pp.
Lashman, G. 1975. Evaporation from prairie sloughs, reservoirs and lakes. Canadian Hydrology
symposium proceedings.
List, R. J. 1951. Smithsonian meteorological tables (6th revised Ed.). Smithsonian Inst.,
Washington.,D.C. pp 351-353.
Leva E W 1989 Graphite furnace determination ofmolybdenum by palladium hydroxylamine
' hydrochloride matrix modification. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Atomic Spectroscopy
10(2): pp. 61-65.
page 10.1
Moore, J. and J. R. Runkles. May 1968. Evaporation from brine under controlled laboratory
conditions. Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas. Report No. 77. 69 pp.
Paul, E. A. and F. E. Clark. 1989. Soil microhiolo^ anH biochemistrv. Academic Press, San
Diego, pp 252-255.
Sadan.A. 1987. Westlands water districtdrainage solar evaporation. A preliminary evaluation.
A technical proposal for drainage management. 22 pp.
Salhotra, A. M., E. E. Adams and D. R. F. Harleman. 1987. The Alpha, Beta, Gamma of
Evaporation from Saline Water Bodies. Water Resources Research 23(9): pp. 1769-1774.
San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program. 1989. Preliminary planning alternatives for solving
agricultural drainage and drainage-related problems in the San Joaquin Valley. August
1989.
Sonnenfeld, P. 1984. Brines and Evaporites. Academic Press, New York, 613 pp.
Swinkels, G. M., A Sadan, M. A. Rockandel and H. Rensing. 1986. Separation and purification
of salts in a non-convective solar pond. U. S. Patent 4 569 676. Date issued: 1 1 February.
Tanji, K K. and M. E. Grismer. 1989. Physicochemical efficacy of agricultural evaporation
ponds-an interim literature review and synthesis. Department of Water Resources-
Agreement number B-56769.
Tanji, K. K 1989. Chemistry of toxic elements (As, B, Mo, Se) accumulating in agricultural
evaporation ponds. Proc. Second Pan-American Regional Conference, U.S. Committee on
Irrigation and Drainage, June 8-9, Ottowa, Ontario, Canada, pp 109- 121.
Tanji, K. K, M. E. Grismer and B. R. Hanson. 1985. Subsurface drainage evaporation ponds.
California Agriculture 39(9): pp. 10-12
Turk, L. J. 1970. Evaporation of brine: A field study on the Bonneville Salt Flats, Utah. Water
Resources Research 6(4): pp. 1209-1215.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. Ponds-Planning,
Design, Construction. Agriculture Handbook 590.
page 10.2
J
SECTION 11
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Evaporation Pond Diurnal Monitoring Data
Table A.1 Weather Conditions During First DiumaJ Study: Pryse I
'ond
p^:
tiana Ttm9
1
T«mp
Serial
RH Wind
wifjdSj
#'*■
hr$
•c
Radiafitm
%
{Srecfen,*
mfi
p
0
3/26/89 10:00 AM
0.0
11.5
64.80
67
354
0.54
10:30 AM
0.5
11.4
16.92
69
288
0.646
11:00 AM
1.0
12.5
71.50
65
16
0.606
11 :00 AM
1.5
12.6
31.80
65
50
0.566
1 1 :30 AM
2.0
13.6
72.40
63
315
0.619
12:00 N
2.5
13.6
40.80
58
350
0.606
12:30 PM
3.0
13.5
14.76
56
277
0.566
1 :00 PM
3.5
13.9
10.02
56
121
0.540
1 :30 PM
4.0
14.0
9.24
59
301
0.480
2:00 PM
4.5
14.8
46.32
49
47
0.486
2:30 PM
5.0
15.6
47.40
51
285
0.560
3:00 PM
5.5
15.2
25.26
5C
250
0.460
3:30 PM
6.0
14.9
27.66
51
63
0.460
4:00 PM
6.5
14.7
8.40
52
341
0.500
4:30 PM
7.0
14.3
4.74
5S
) 106
0.500
5:00 PM
7.5
13.6
0.72
65 126
0.513
5:30 PM
8.0
13.3
0.24
72 108
0.633
6:00 PM
8.5
13.1
0.12
75 138
0.526
6:30 PM
9.0
12.9
0.30
77 150
0.540
7:00 PM
9.5
12.9
-0.30
74 147
0.553
7:30 PM
10.0
12.8
-0.06
78 174
0.460
8:00 PM
10.5
12.7
-0.30
76 197
0.447
8:30 PM
11.0
12.1
0.30
75 220
0.580
9:00 PM
11.5
10.8
0.06
88 60
0.540
9:30 PM
12.0
9.8
-0.12
96 41
0.619
10:00 PM
12.5
11.0
-0.72
96 130
0.566
10:30 PM
13.0
10.7
0.00
94 112
0.460
1 1 :00 PM
13.5
10.5
0.12
95 116
0.500
11:30 PM
14.0
10.1
0.03
93 154
0.606
3/27/89 12:00 M
14.5
9.5
-0.06
94 109
0.646
12:30 AM
15.0
8.1
-0.42
97 86
0.526
1 :00 AM
15.5
8.5
0.18
98 153
0.646
1 :30 AM
16.0
7.4
0.06
99 102
0.553
2:00 AM
16.5
7.4
-0.06
100 104
0.580
2:30 AM
17.0
7.1
0.12
101 143
0.566
3:00 AM
17.5
5.5
-0.24
100 213
0.447
3:30 AM
18.0
4.7
0.06
102 63
0.606
4:00 AM
18.5
4.9
-0.06
102 264
0.513
4:30 AM
19.0
5.5
-0.18
103 114
0.606
5:00 AM
19.5
4.9
0.48
103 255
0.447
5:30 AM
20.0
•
•
6:00 AM
20.5
tt
6:30 AM
21.0
•
7:00 AM
21.5
•
7:30 AM
22.0
*
8:00 AM
22.5
•
8:30 AM
23.0
•
9:00 AM
23.5
•
9:30 AM
* . na data
24.0
•
poffe 11.1
Table AJ2 Pond Water Conditions During First Diurnal Study:
Pryse Pond
psS
t>&9
Tme
itow
Tcn^
£C(2S°<5^
pW
56
&i
6«n»Jty:
pi
iws
♦c
dS/m
me/L
OiV
1
3/26/89
10:00 AM
0
16.2
51.58
8.06
8.2
536
1.035
12:00 N
2
17.3
52.60
849
94
465
1.035
2:00 PM
4
18.1
50.93
8.42
11.2
492
1.035
4:00 PM
6
17.6
51.88
8.36
90
484
1.035
6:00 PM
8
17.7
50.59
855
14.2
419
1.035
8:00 PM
10
17.3
50.71
8.57
17.6
419
1.030
10:00 PM
12
17.8
50.00
8.6
17.8
420
1.030
3/27/89
12:00 M
14
16
50.73
853
16.0
415
1.030
2:00 AM
16
14.7
51.51
86
15.6
419
1.030
4:00 AM
18
15
50.63
8.57
13.6
403
1.030
6:00 AM
20
13.3
5248
8.59
12.8
396
1.030
8:00 AM
22
14
52.56
862
13.4
375
1.035
10:00 AM
24
16.3
52.66
8.49
10.4
384
1.035
Table A.S Weather Conditions During First Diurnal Study: Peck Pond
T>m9
X
T«fnp
d<^
«H
W«nd
Wind Spwd
^if
hns
*C
Radiation
%
D»r«ction,*
m/« "si*
3/29/89
10:00 AM
0 0
16.0
53 34
53
319
0.553
10:30 AM
0.5
16.9
57.78
51
329
0.593
1 1 :00 AM
1.0
17.3
60.42
52
330
0,486
1 1 :30 AM
1.5
17.8
61.04
52
330
0.593
12:00 N
2.0
184
63.18
54
311
0.606
12:30 PM
2.5
19.4
63.00
52
337
0.540
1 :00 PM
3.0
19.4
61.62
50
317
0.447
1 :30 PM
3.5
20.1
59.28
51
303
0.553
2:00 PM
4.0
21.5
55.98
48
316
0.593
2:30 PM
4.5
21.1
51.48
43
310
0.553
3:00 PM
5.0
21.3
46.14
43
336
0.606
3:30 PM
5.5
21.6
38.88
50
328
0.606
4.00 PM
6.0
21.7
32.52
40
326
0.460
4:30 PM
6.5
21.4
24.84
39
344
0.500
5:00 PM
7.0
21.1
17.34
43
327
0.480
5:30 PM
7.5
21.6
10.02
43
335
0.447
6:00 PM
8.0
19.6
28.80
47
348
0.633
6:30 PM
85
17.5
0 12
50
330
0.526
7:00 PM
90
15.9
0.00
55
316
0646
7:30 PM
95
15.6
-0.18
56
267
0.503
8:00 PM
10.0
14.6
000
55
304
0 473
8:30 PM
10.5
14.4
0.00
60
293
0.500
9:00 PM
11.0
14.1
0.00
62
296
0.513
9:30 PM
11.5
13.4
-0 06
62
265
0.540
10:00 PM
120
13.3
-0.06
61
266
0.553
10:30 PM
12.5
13.1
0.00
62
269
0.553
11:00 PM
13.0
14.1
-0.12
62
253
0486
1 1 :30 PM
13.5
13.6
-0.06
64
246
0.526
3/30/89
12:00 M
14.0
13.5
0.00
64
261
0.566
12:30 AM
14.5
12.9
0.00
65
264
0.473
1 :00 AM
15.0
12.8
-0.06
66
255
0.646
1 :30 AM
15.5
12.0
-0.06
70
252
0.566
2:00 AM
16.0
12.3
0.00
71
262
0.473
2:30 AM
16.5
8.0
0.00
73
22
0.513
3:00 AM
17.0
6.0
-0.12
82
13
0486
3:30 AM
17.5
7.2
-0.12
84
355
0.606
4:00 AM
18.0
8.0
0.00
84
331
0.580
4:30 AM
5:00 AM
530 AM
6:00 AM
630 AM
7:00 AM
730 AM
8:00 AM
8:30 AM
9:00 AM
9:30 AM
10:00 AK/
18.5
19.0
195
20.0
20.5
21.0
21.5
22.0
225
23.0
235
1 24.0
8.2
8.1
8.5
8.4
8.0
10.1
11.8
13.2
14.7
16.0
16.8
173
-006
000
-006
0.66
5.34
12.60
17.58
27.72
3342
41.82
5895
55.01
84
84
85
85
79
76
75
74
68
65
59
56
202
267
257
251
264
257
260
274
302
278
358
310
0.500
0580
0 6,^1
0.460
0540
0580
0.503
0.580
0.540
0.510
0526
0593
pagf 11.2
Table A.4 Pond Water Conditions During First Diurnal Study: Peck Pond
M
08t«
TiJtte
t»m«
T*mp
EC<26"C)
PH
t)6
&h
D»n»«/;|
f
hrs
♦c
as/m
fng/L
itiV
:■:■;
3
3/29/89
10:00 AM
0
17.3
70.80
8.59
9.5
385
1.070
12:00 N
2
18.9
74.26
8.69
9.8
434
1.070
2:00 PM
4
21.7
72.38
8.64
9.8
356
1.070
4:00 PM
6
22.3
73.33
8.63
10.0
387
1.070
6:00 PM
8
21.1
73.54
8.61
10.4
372
1.070
8:00 PM
10
19.5
73.82
8.58
10.2
377
1.070
10:00 PM
12
18.2
72.34
8.66
9.6
1.070
3/30/89
12:00 M
14
16.7
73.14
8.6
9.8
1.070
2:00 AM
16
16
72.44
8.62
9.4
1.070
4:00 AM
18
13.5
73.12
8.64
9.3
1.070
6:00 AM
20
13.4
73.70
8.57
9.6
1.070
8:00 AM
22
13.5
75.32
8.66
9.0
1.070
10:00 AM
24
16.4
73.79
8.57
9.4
1.070
5
3/29/89
10:00 AM
0
18.3
61.66
8.71
10.0
391
1.060
12:00 N
2
20.3
64.90
8.73
10.0
419
1.060
2:00 PM
4
225
62.91
8.7
9.6
348
1.060
4:00 PM
6
21.5
64.62
8.72
9.9
380
1.060
6:00 PM
8
19.1
63.83
8.69
9.4
364
1.060
8:00 PM
10
16.6
63.70
8.65
94
1.060
10:00 PM
12
16.5
61.45
8.69
9.2
1.060
3/30/89
12:00 M
14
14.4
62.44
8.64
9.4
1.060
2:00 AM
16
14.6
62.25
8.66
9.6
1.060
4:00 AM
18
11.9
63.82
8.58
9.6
1.065
6:00 AM
20
12.4
62.97
8.7
9.4
1.060
8:00 AM
22
13.8
65.98
8.73
10.8
1.065
10:00 AM
24
19.8
64.29
8.69
11.6
1.060
• = no data
page 11.3
Table A.6 Weather Conditions During First Diurnal Study: Barbizon Pond
pts
Ttrm
1
T%mp
Sda
RH
Wind
WindSpMd
^
™™.hr$ . .
•0.
s: Radiation
%
C*«<5ttOft,*
mfB :i^
3/27/89
1 00 PM
0.0
19.8
57.36
22
3
0.447
1 .30 PM
0.5
20.0
53.34
21
183
0.566
2:00 PM
1.0
19.9
48.78
22
329
0.513
2:30 PM
1.5
20.2
43.20
22
7
0.513
3:00 PM
2.0
20.3
36.54
23
33
0.513
3:30 PM
2.5
19.5
29.88
23
339
0.593
4:00 PM
3.0
19.2
22.14
22
357
0.646
4:30 PM
3.5
18.9
14.88
22
16
0.513
5:00 PM
4.0
18.1
7.74
22
363
0.566
5:30 PM
4.5
16.4
1.44
22
27
0.619
6:00 PM
5.0
15.4
0.00
22
31
0.540
6:30 PM
5.5
14.8
0.00
22
42
0.619
7:00 PM
6.0
14.4
-0.06
22
339
0.513
7:30 PM
6.5
14.3
-0.06
21
351
0.619
8:00 PM
7.0
13.6
-0.06
22
326
0.447
8:30 PM
7.5
13.5
-0.06
21
325
0.593
9:00 PM
8.0
13.4
-0.06
21
174
0.500
9:30 PM
85
11.2
0.00
22
345
0.553
10:00 PM
9.0
13.3
-0.06
21
162
0.513
10:30 PM
9.5
12.6
-0.06
21
214
0.540
11:00 PM
10.0
11.5
-0.12
21
284
0.593
1 1 :30 PM
10.5
9.5
-0.06
21
298
0.513
3/28/89
12:00 M
11.0
9.4
-0.06
21
343
0.447
12:30 AM
11.5
8.9
0.00
21
45
0.447
1:00 AM
12.0
8.0
-0.06
21
98
0.566
1:30 AM
12.5
6.6
-0.06
21
67
0.606
2:00 AM
13.0
8.1
-0.06
21
162
0.540
2:30 AM
13.5
9.6
0.00
21
163
0.500
3:00 AM
14.0
9.3
-0.06
21
178
0.447
3:30 AM
14.5
9.1
0.00
21
205
0.460
4:00 AM
15.0
9.0
-0,06
21
116
0.473
4:30 AM
15.5
7.9
-0.06
21
90
0.460
5:00 AM
16.0
8.4
0.00
21
80
0.593
5:30 AM
16.5
8.0
0.72
21
86
0.580
6:00 AM
17.0
9.7
6.48
21
106
0.553
6:30 AM
17.5
12.1
3.54
21
133
0.566
7:00 AM
18.0
14.1
21.18
21
153
0.633
7:30 AM
18.5
14.5
27.72
21
157
0.486
8:00 AM
19.0
16.6
34.80
21
154
0.486
8:30 AM
19.5
17.0
41.10
21
157
0.447
9:00 AM
20.0
18.7
46.92
21
228
0.500
9:30 AM
20.5
20.1
52.02
21
165
0.580
10:00 AM
21.0
20.7
54.92
21
169
0.486
10:30 AM
21.5
22.2
59.22
21
283
0.566
1 1 :00 AM
22.0
21.2
60.78
21
98
0.606
1 1 :00 AM
22.5
23.4
60.96
21
140
0.500
1 1 :30 AM
23.0
23.8
60.60
21
100
0.460
12:00 N
23.5
23.9
60.30
21
226
0.500
12:30 PM
24.0
24.6
57.90
21
319
0.553
page
11.4
Table A-G Pond Water Conditions During First Diurnal Study: Barbiron Pond
CS Di» time vSm Twf^ ^{25^) pH 55 ' ib D«n$^;
^t X dS/m TagfL mV
3/27/89
3/28/89
1 :00 PM
0
21.2
21.75
8.70
348.7
15
1.010
3:00 PM
2
24.6
21.57
9.01
381.7
18
1.010
5:00 PM
4
23.5
20.41
8.94
54,7
19
1.010
7:00 PM
6
20.7
21.12
9.06
117.7
15
1.010
9:00 PM
8
19.4
20.95
8.82
196.7
11
1.015
1 1 :00 PM
10
17.9
20.40
8.72
172.7
10
1.010
1 :00 AM
12
15.5
21.11
8.83
407.7
8
1.010
3:00 AM
14
14.6
20.68
8.48
476.7
6
1.010
5:00 AM
16
14
20.45
8.60
491.7
5
1.010
7:00 AM
18
13.9
21.22
8.72
478.7
5
1.010
9:00 AM
20
19.5
20.03
9.70
457.7
10
1.010
1 1 :00 AM
22
23.8
21.21
8.96
447.7
14
1.010
1 :00 PM
24
26.2
21.48
9.00
423.7
16
1.010
page 11.5
I
*>ata Tsm
i
1
hrs
T^
Rsdiafcn
RH
%
Wind Speed,
8/15/89 11:00 AM
0.0
32.7
59.22
35
199
0.593
11:30 AM
0.5
33.5
16.14
40
176
0.486
12:00 PM
1.0
35.3
65.04
34
113
0.593
12:30 PM
1.5
35.3
67.20
33
153
0.513
1 :00 PM
2.0
37.1
67.26
28
127
0.566
1 :30 PM
2.5
38.6
66.24
28
221
0.486
2:00 PM
3.0
37.7
65.10
26
167
0.553
2:30 PM
3.5
39.1
62.52
24
203
0.619
3:00 PM
4.0
39.5
57.96
25
176
0.580
3:30 PM
4.5
39.0
53.70
24
347
0.646
4:00 PM
5.0
38.5
49.38
23
362
0.606
4:30 PM
5.5
38.5
43.56
23
57
0.566
5:00 PM
6.0
38.3
36.36
24
33
0.473
5:30 PM
6.5
38.0
30.00
23
17
0.553
6:00 PM
7.0
37.7
22.44
23
354
0.593
6:30 PM
7.5
36.7
14.94
23
22
0.540
7:00 PM
8.0
34.9
8.04
26
34
0.606
7:30 PM
8.5
31.4
1.26
29
37
0.486
8:00 PM
9.0
30.8
0.18
34
299
0.526
8:30 PM
9.5
27.4
-0.06
35
235
0.540
9:00 PM
10.0
24.3
-0.06
39
237
0.540
9:30 PM
10.5
23.0
-0.12
42
230
0.526
10:00 PM
11.0
21.5
-0.06
43
239
0.566
10:30 PM
11.5
21.6
-0.06
44
238
0.486
1 1 :00 PM
12.0
20.5
0.00
47
237
0.500
1 1 :30 PM
12.5
20.4
0.06
46
236
0.593
8/16/89 12:00 AM
13.0
20.7
0.00
47
271
0.580
12:30 AM
13.5
20.3
0.00
47
256
0.593
1 :00 AM
14.0
20.5
0.00
49
279
0.553
1 :30 AM
14.5
20.7
0.00
52
286
0.553
2:00 AM
15.0
19.1
0.06
56
269
0.447
2:30 AM
15.5
18.1
0.00
54
266
0.540
3:00 AM
16.0
17.0
-0.12
63
248
0.633
3:30 AM
16.5
17.8
-0.06
54
255
0.460
4:00 AM
17,0
17.7
0.00
56
256
0.500
4:30 AM
17.5
17.1
0.12
56
255
0.606
5:00 AM
18.0
16.1
-0.06
66
242
0.526
5:30 AM
18.5
16.8
-0.06
67
82
0.553
6:00 AM
19.0
15.6
0.00
68
120
0.513
6:30 AM
19.5
16.9
1.14
78
145
0.566
7:00 AM
20.0
20.6
6.72
70
152
0.606
7:30 AM
20.5
21.0
13.62
59
141
0.593
8:00 AM
21.0
22.9
21.06
55
153
0.633
8:30 AM
21.5
23.2
3.36
53
130
0.553
9:00 AM
22.0
25.3
36.00
49
131
0.447
9:30 AM
22.5
27.2
42.66
46
126
0.447
10:00 AM
23.0
29.7
48.18
45
126
0.646
10:30 AM
23.5
32.2
54.12
32
226
0.526
1 1 :00 AM
24.0
33.0
58.68
29
262
0.500
page 11.6
Table A-8 Pond Water Conciitions During Second Ehumal Study; Pryse Pond
W^
0atB
Totw
6fna
TofTHJ
^^.-^^
PH
DO
Eh
OenHJy
1 NW 8/15/89
11:00 AM
0
29.2
56.09
8.62
3.6
477
1.040
1 :00 PM
2
31.8
56.87
8.79
20.0
470
1.040
3:00 PM
4
35.1
59.65
8.82
6.7
434
1.040
5:00 PM
6
31.1
65.69
8.79
18.6
380
1.050
7:00 PM
8
26.9
65.61
8.32
7.2
356
1.050
9:00 PM
10
26.3
65.59
8.53
6.4
318
1.050
1 1 :00 PM
12
25.8
65.45
8.58
13.8
340
1.050
8/16/89
1 :00 AM
14
26,2
67.19
8.68
11.8
338
1.050
3:00 AM
16
24.6
67.44
5.47
6.0
326
1.045
5:00 AM
18
23.8
65.68
8.54
3.2
358
1.050
7:00 AM
20
19.3
61.85
8.55
6.0
373
1.050
9:00 AM
22
22.8
54.92
8.52
18.8
377
1.040
1 1 :00 AM
24
28.7
54.10
8.61
20.0
353
1.035
Table A.9 Weather Conditions During Second Diurnal Study:
Peck Pond
;i?at« T>mo
t
Tamp
^Kiiat
FW
WmJ
Wtml Spwics
hre
"C
RadiaHofi
%
Oif««ton, '
nv« i
8/19/89 10:30 AM
05
25.2
50.82
56
14
0.460
1 1 :00 AM
1.0
27.3
55.50
58
265
0.447
11:30 AM
1.5
29 0
59 46
55
273
0.629
12:00 PM
2.0
289
62.28
57
261
0.512
12:30 PM
2.5
32.1
64.56
50
256
0.538
1 :00 PM
3.0
31.8
64.86
48
76
0.551
1 :30 PM
3.5
33.3
63.96
45
355
0.460
2:00 PM
40
30.6
5.34
41
83
0.603
2:30 PM
4.5
34.2
60 IB
40
322
0.447
3:00 PM
5.0
35.2
56.58
40
354
0.486
3:30 PM
5.5
34.0
52.02
39
217
0.616
4:00 PM
6.0
33.1
47.10
40
289
0.400
4:30 PM
6.6
329
41.22
38
203
0447
6:00 PM
7.0
329
34.86
38
273
0.500
6:30 PM
7.5
32 0
27.84
31
341
0.525
6:00 PM
8.0
31.6
20 46
42
348
0.500
6:30 PM
8.6
31.0
13.26
42
355
0 460
7:00 PM
0.0
294
6.78
43
355
0.603
7:30 PM
0.5
27.5
1.60
47
264
0.409
8:00 PM
10.0
252
0.06
61
283
0.460
8:30 PM
10.5
247
-0.06
62
283
0486
0:00 PM
11.0
23.2
0.00
66
73
0.642
0:30 PM
11.5
21.4
0.06
62
260
0.499
10:00 PM
12.0
226
0.06
63
257
0.538
10:30 PM
12.5
21.3
0.00
60
281
0.512
11:00 PM
13.0
20.8
0.00
66
263
0.447
1 1 :30 PM
13.5
10.0
-0.06
71
209
0.577
8/20/89 12:00AM
14.0
18.5
0.06
70
84
0.629
12:30 AM
14.5
16.3
-006
71
368
0.551
1 :00 AM
15.0
18.5
0.06
67
360
0.525
1 :30 AM
15.5
18.3
0.00
76
300
0.616
2:00 AM
16.0
17.7
0.00
82
270
0.512
2:30 AM
16.5
16.0
-0.12
82
268
0.603
3:00 AM
17.0
16.7
0.06
82
205
0.538
3:30 AM
17.5
16.6
-0.06
84
324
0.616
4:00 AM
18.0
16.7
000
83
308
0512
4:30 AM
18.5
16.7
-0.06
85
287
0.577
6:00 AM
19.0
16.7
-0.06
82
273
0 564
5 JO AM
19.5
16.1
000
82
335
0.564
6:00 AM
20.0
150
-0.06
87
333
0.616
6:30 AM
7:00 AM
7UJ0AM
8:00 AM
8:30 AM
0:00 AM
0:30 AM
10:00 AM
20.5
21.0
21.5
22.0
22.5
23.0
235
1 240
14.5
144
164
188
10.7
21.2
23.2
23.2
0.36
1.56
642
1848
25 56
438
39 18
4602
00
00
80
76
74
71
71
66
208
270
358
270
296
284
206
308
0.577
0.525
0.400
0.400
0.460
0.638
0.525
0.551
p€ige 11.7
Table A.10 Pond Water Conditions Ehiring Second Ehurnal Study: Peck Pond
r
Dale
Time
feme
Tenp
EC(25'C)
pH
DO
Eh
Den$rty
1
tws
"C
dS/m
mgfl
mV
1NW
8/19/69
10:00 AM
0
24.9
12.80
7.5
8.8
375
1.010
12:00 N
2
2.62
24.08
7.82
9.6
367
1.010
2:00 PM
4
26.4
12.35
7.33
9.0
383
1.010
4:00 PM
6
27.8
12.50
7.59
9.2
362
1.010
6:00 PM
8
27.4
12.90
7.83
9.6
373
1.010
8:00 PM
10
24.8
12.65
7.82
9.4
370
1.010
10:00 PM
12
23.5
12.78
7.72
9.0
357
1.005
8/20/89
12:00 M
14
23
13.21
7.86
8.8
392
1.005
2:00 AM
16
22.2
13.88
8.37
9.0
432
1.010
4:00 AM
18
22.2
14.62
8.81
9.0
375
1.010
6:00 AM
20
21.8
14.63
9.1
9.2
392
1.010
8:00 AM
22
21.2
14.94
8.86
9.4
373
1.010
10:00 AM
24
23.4
14.88
8.81
10.1
389
1.010
3SW
8/19/89
10:00 AM
0
24.5
98.38
8.32
8.2
372
1.120
Brine
12:00 N
2
27.9
101.61
8.41
12.4
362
1.115
Shrimp
2:00 PM
4
31.6
101.24
8.43
14.4
364
1.115
4:00 PM
6
33.2
99.48
8.79
12.0
364
1.115
6:00 PM
8
30.9
101.34
8.73
7.6
347
1.120
8:00 PM
10
27.5
124.67
8.81
2.4
341
1.120
10:00 PM
12
25
98.00
8.55
4.4
322
1.115
8/20/89
12:00 M
14
22
99.57
8.28
2.4
308
1.115
2:00 AM
16
20.1
100.22
8.28
2.2
377
1.120
4:00 AM
18
19.2
99.77
8.38
4.4
331
1.115
6:00 AM
20
17.7
99.77
8.35
3.2
345
1.115
8:00 AM
22
17.3
101.30
8.32
3.8
342
1.120
10:00 AM
24
22.4
99.05
8.25
5.0
349
1.120
3 W
8/19/89
10:00 AM
0
27.4
144.47
7.8
2.4
373
1.235
Salt
12:00 N
2
32.2
140.56
7.76
1.6
361
1.250
Crusts
2:00 PM
4
35.1
150.75
7.9
1.6
349
1.250
4:00 PM
6
36.2
147.88
8.07
1.4
367
1.250
6:00 PM
8
33.8
143.54
8
1.6
345
1.300
8:00 PM
10
33
135.78
8.04
1.8
369
1.300
10:00 PM
12
26.3
139.86
7.94
2.0
333
1.300
8/20/89
12:00 M
14
23.6
139.71
7.67
1.6
323
1.300
2:00 AM
16
21.3
139.74
7.68
1.8
357
1.300
4:00 AM
18
28
117.45
7.8
2.6
319
1.300
6:00 AM
20
19.9
137.08
7.82
2.0
330
1.300
8:00 AM
22
18.8
140.75
7.73
24
329
1.300
10:00 AM
24
22.8
132.11
7.66
2.6
331
1.300
page 11.8
Table A.11 Pond Water Conditions During Second Diurnal Study: Barbizon Pond
pet© ' fbrie I Tdmp Sd^ RH ^5 WindSps«d
^ hr$ 'C Radiation % [fe-BCtJon" mfe si?
8/17/89
8/18/89
11:00 AM
0.0
23.9
56.82
55
246
0.526
1 1 :30 AM
0.5
25.3
9.72
51
224
0.553
12:00 PM
1.0
264
58.80
51
221
0.580
12:30 PM
1.5
26.5
65.58
47
105
0.486
1:00 PM
2.0
29.2
66.66
46
186
0.606
1:30 PM
2.5
28.2
66.24
47
218
0.473
2:00 PM
3.0
28.8
64.74
44
235
0.526
2:30 PM
3.5
30.0
62.10
38
53
0.486
3:00 PM
4.0
31.4
58.86
35
2
0.513
3:30 PM
4.5
31.4
54.66
32
312
0.619
4:00 PM
5.0
31.5
49.20
3
306
0.513
4:30 PM
5.5
31.8
43.32
28
336
0.580
5:00 PM
6.0
32.3
37.02
27
317
0.460
5:30 PM
6.5
31.5
29.46
26
288
0.619
6:00 PM
7.0
31.1
22.14
27
4
0.619
6:30 PM
7.5
30.5
14.46
30
341
0.566
7:00 PM
8.0
29.9
7.50
31
341
0.500
7:30 PM
8.5
28.2
1.38
42
3
0.553
8:00 PM
9.0
26.4
0.06
46
8
0.526
8:30 PM
9.5
24.7
-0.06
48
325
0.447
9:00 PM
10.0
23.5
0.00
54
312
0.646
9:30 PM
10.5
22.0
■0.06
59
284
0.473
10:00 PM
11.0
22.1
0.00
58
311
0.513
10:30 PM
11.5
20.9
0.06
63
307
0.566
11:00 PM
12.0
19.9
0.00
67
309
0.513
1 1 :30 PM
12.5
19.5
0.00
71
303
0.633
12:00 AM
13.0
18.9
-0.06
73
316
0.447
12:30 AM
13.5
18.1
-0.60
77
324
0.619
1 :00 AM
14.0
17.9
0.06
78
306
0.553
1:30 AM
14.5
18.1
-0.06
79
296
0.486
2:00 AM
15.0
18.0
0.00
78
297
0.553
2:30 AM
155
17.6
0.00
79
293
0.540
3:00 AM
16.0
17.3
0.06
81
301
0.526
3:30 AM
16.5
16.5
0.06
85
320
0.566
4:00 AM
17.0
15.5
0.00
87
359
0.460
4:30 AM
17.5
14.8
0.00
94
67
0.566
5:00 AM
18.0
14.2
0.00
97
53
0.593
5:30 AM
18.5
14.3
0.06
96
291
0.566
6:00 AM
19.0
14.4
0.00
97
264
0.619
6.30 AM
19.5
14.2
0.78
94
275
0.486
7:00 AM
20.0
16.3
4.86
90
292
0.447
7:30 AM
20.5
18.3
11.10
84
293
0.526
8:00 AM
21.0
19.3
17.94
80
300
0.553
8:30 AM
21.5
20.3
25.26
77
307
0.619
9:00 AM
22.0
21.5
32.58
74
306
0.447
9:30 AM
22.5
23.8
15.84
70
312
0.460
10:00 AM
23.0
24.5
45.78
68
313
0.593
1050 AM
23.5
26.5
51.18
64
348
0.593
11:00 AM
24.0
25.6
55.98
63
329
0.566
page 11.9
Table A.12 Pond Water Conditions During Second Diurnal Study: Barbizon Pond
8/17/89
8/18/89
Thtw
tens
Tanp
£C<2SX)
PH
DO
Eh
Oen^
tlfS
*C
dS/m
mqfl
mV
1 1 ;00 AM
0
24.9
11.87
8.18
20.0
340
1.005
1 :00 PM
2
27.4
11.77
8.5
20.0
348
1.005
3:00 PM
4
28.6
11.87
8.73
20.0
355
1.005
5:00 PM
6
27.6
12.19
8.27
17.6
321
1.005
7:00 PM
8
24.6
12.00
7.85
11.0
311
1.005
9:00 PM
10
24.3
11.76
7.44
5.2
411
1.005
11 :00 PM
12
21.2
12.31
7.24
5.2
420
1.005
1 :00 AM
14
18.8
12.29
7.55
5.0
400
1.005
3:00 AM
16
17.5
12.48
7.57
5.4
325
1.005
5:00 AM
18
19.3
14.70
7.47
5.6
112
1.005
7:00 AM
20
18.9
14.69
7.49
7.8
375
1.005
9:00 AM
22
21.5
13.23
8.12
17.6
365
1.005
11:00 AM 24 25.4 13.00 8.46 20.0 370 1.005
page 11.10
1
APPENDIX B: CIMIS Weather Data from Stations Near To Evaporation Ponds
c
o
a
a
c
c
.2
S
m
C
I-
a
5
CO
•V
«
s
a
o
li
>
u o
TO ^
en —
Q.
I P
a> -r CNJ CM
Csl ~ •«» rr
5T- f^ Tt tn c\i
^■■•-ooooo
o o o o o
o o o o
o. P P o g ?3
PPPPPPPP od
o><oc>jr>.'<*or^ir)i/>i/>
o>0)0>oooooor~r^r^0)^^^~0)0ooooeo
O) in CO r«-
d T^ ■^ d
ooooocD'«t'vr5<or^
^cooOT-c>^N-oqc^^oqt~-.»-^r~.p^opoio'~~:Cvi<poq
<NJ CNJ ■r^ OJ Cj Oi 1-^ •r-' •r-' ^' d d ■<-'»-' ^ CM C\) »-' ■^' OJ ^ •^ •^ •^'
"-eDCjin^cn^cNjr-wcocN;
r5cocoroc\ic«3cocsj»-^^*'"'»--^'-'i-"-"'^''^'^^cM
or^oo'-cvjcnin
mCT)'-oiC)opc\iCsj
l/5jDr^(OtDtDCOC\l
CMCvJCvJCsJCMC\JC\JCvlC\JC\l»;-^Scj
CM CO ^- 00 in <p ^^
•.-^ CM cri P3 •*' 1- •*
^ ^ in O «P fyj
CO CM •^ r- d oi
^.eOlno^~;CD■«^•<D■^. ^
t->-'(C>(b<c>inininuScci^
I
O'-cjt^^m«er^«0»
O »- CM CO ^
mcDf^cooiO'— cMco
^^^•.---CMCMCMCM
§§88888
8
1^
page 11.11
1
c
c
t)
c
c
o
s
B
I
CO
<s
5
00
CO
s
o
ea
«
a
c
oooodoooooooocpdddcpo'ooooo
Ol
(£>
00
o
CJ
O)
r~
(O
•«■
CM
^
CM
CO
CO
<D
O)
O)
00
00
CO
at
O)
00
CD
^C\jpCMO)t^"^C?^^. 0)CM
odoio)0)cid*^'~'~'~c>»-
05 1- r^
■^' CJ CM
CMroincMpotcpcupinmoJocoou^vco^v
cri<^CM»-»-dd»-»-ddd»-d^'-CMCM(NJcM
-gSJ
— >
t/3 —
O
Q.
s s
CMQCOeOJPio'^RS
O ^ CD 00 CO CM >-
f^ O O CM r5 CD Tj-
CO o o p p
■«t ■«• CO ^ ^
SCO CD r-.
i£t t£t fO
cDconnnoD'-'^CMmw^
(Sr-~oocoooooo>a>oo(cin
r^ r^ r^ CO m CO
£i-£i-'ooc\jfy«v'yf>'<v<V'vt>'fy'yoS
00 00 S m CO ■•- '^
in ^
ID CTl
CMr^co<o«oco«)r>-coi/5^»-
O CO o ^ t^ 00 o
CD lO CO ^ 1/)
oDeDcn<J)C7>cDmcoo4'»-oooiQ5aJo6o6r-^0)^!^SES?J^
0»-CMCO^l/>«0'^000>p»-CMCO
—— — — — — — ^'CMCMCM
o-CMco'»in«>r.000)O;:SiJ2?^^!;:22R
88
pa^e 11.12
1
O) r> oo csi
Tj- to <o f^
o o d o
y- <D in
t^ <D ui
o o o o o
••- •- r-
V CM o
■ o o o
m^r>r3r>c\jcvjcNicvj»-j-r5'''S2
OOOOOOOOOOOO^CO'T
doooooooooooo
- ^^
r^ to
»- O) IT) 00 I' O
00 r^ «D •* * *
o> r- «o p
^ <£> «o t-~
CO CO ui ^
ino»-o<\|^<oo
(c>(C>(£>(C>r^o>coco
f^ CO p IT) p
uS (O uS uS i/S
o> ^ p ^
•< uS IT) ■fl-
T-^T-oCM<*)0>coa>cpir>pcc>pipp
lis§gSs3§HIRg8SSSss«SSI
r^ooo'-'-'-;''!;*
f;5^;SiQ?55!?^iQ!$?Sl/^?iS^^^i'r-f-
^ CJ 00 T-
«o •* ^
torooocor^t^^cM
CO o o CO
m c\j CNj c*5 oi
T- CO in <o
Oif><OCOC»)OC>COO>OOCDCVl
fs^oid'-cvJCNJ'-cicocsj'-Ooioioo
V^ii-cjcMcgcMCjosj'-'-'-'-
incocNtcoiiricop
' r^ r^ (£1 IT) -^
^ p
CO (O
c\j ui r^
P^ CM ui r^
i-c<gco'»i/><or-ooo)
•.-c>jco*i/><of^«''^
O »- CM CO •^^
CM CM CM CM CM
pooooooo---^
» 2 S J^ 5^ K s
o o o o o p
■.- CM CO V m <C f^
eeesoppoooooo
o o o o o p p
i- CM CO T lf> »0 1^
o o
o o
CO CD ^ ;_
page 11.13
i
I
I
i
3l
It)
to
£ '(/)
Q. re
.. o
re
>
■o
1^
o o
f- r^ n o> o
»- CM ^ IT) r-
ooooooooo
^ J2 o>
.^■^ tf\ ir\ it\ tr\ ^^ ^^ ^~' Oi zZ. _ — ^^-^-^^^^^^^
r^ (O CD to eo
•^csicNJcJcvicJcJcj'-''-'-'"'"
3
13
C
s.
»
c
c
o
•xs
5
(n
c
CO
eg
I
I
«
CO
a> o
■g
E
5ss
^ODCVJO<Df^JVJlg^JZ5JC5
CJ
CD CD U^ ^
O ff) Ol f^ O
CM CM CO C^
O V «o
CO CM »-
oo,o>^jssss5??iS5BSS^:;5SS?3?;;
1^
"I
sie5^f:S2§S?;oooooooooo
00O)O)O)I^CDCO'-
_ O O 'J- «0 CO
S CD 0> 00 Tf ID
^ ^ CO in r^ 00
Q.
E -4
I
T3
re
ai
O)<Df-r~-0DCr)CMmr~-
If) ■*
CM <J> h- P CO CD <0 CM
CO CD U1 lf> ^ ^.
c>si ^ oi r^ f^
O •>- CM CO V
i/> CD r^ CO o>
•■-CMCO-*"!"''^'"
O) O »- CM CO 't
i- CM CM CM CM CM
ooooooooogggoggggggg
8Si|8ig||ilii|ig§
^ CM CO
^ in CD r^ CO
o o
o o
o> ? :^
pa^<> 11.14
^1
UJ E
in
in
• in
Q. n
_ £1
as
>
CT> r^ «5 55
in (O (o vD
d o o
boddddododdddooooooooo
CM o>
to 'J-
T5
^ ^ O) o>
ddd-.-'r^O'«-o-''»-fl^'*<^<^li2!P"
c^^cvit^.- r^«>«>^. ^c^c^o^tDtpo,^. co^l^oo,^^
c
§
(4
A
PQ
I
5
a
I-
I
I
en
ooa)or)r^oo<-;r--
^ r^ r^ --
r^CTie)v3cM'-PJ'-cor3r50cocor2or5C\iP5c^r7rji<
CM *- ▼"
^ E^
- 5
O C^ «0 'J^ «D
Tt CT) CM CM »-
??i2gJ?JS?i5SSEB^^SSSfS5SS5
^O^t^t^C£>CMSf^tMCMCv]CMCMCMtM'7CMrsJ«D(DlDin
eg CM CO n f^
~ CNJ ^
t-~ CO
Q.
»- P5 CD «0 00
P5 ID O) a) »'> P ^
<o m r^ r«* c> CM
If) cS CM O O) CD
^ JS E;: S a S S R J^ S S S s
00 tfi <o t^ c> o t^
•o
a
in
u 8-
I
o ■»- C^J ^
^ m «D r^ «© o>
o^cMco^rintDh-oojo-cMrj^
l/^ to h* 00 c> o
OQOOOOoOOOOOOOgoO
o o o o
^ CM CO ^
eSSpooooooo
^r-CMCOJ^Cyin
CM CM CM CM CM
^n ID f^ CD ^ ,_ ,_
page
11.15
^1
r^ •< to cj »-. o I-; P
CNJCMCJCMCMCJCM'-
«o <\i o <o
(Tj ^ (£> r.'
00
2 5
f.^ ,- f*. ^ m CT •< o> ■^.
cvi.^.r^c\Jr>iriocvjcMr>jcvjCJCDCMC\j
•t- CNJ
CJ
a^ \r> o
m in m
§ 5 < 5 5
^SSSSSP!F::f5S£SS?;r2JS
^&S§r5SS^
00 r>- tJ>
— - '^ CM
00 r^ *^ <^ *"
o o o
»< »- CO "- c^
f^ m r- r^ <M
*" T- CO ui m
•S K^SSSSSS^«?5S?^^~^
tDCOO^-TT^jrn^Jvirvjr^ru
O C\J
rg CM
o T- CM CO
^ in «o r~ 00 O)
^ CM CO ■« m <0
:^ 5 2 S ^ ?^ 55
iiiiiiiiii||ii§ii§s§§-l
CM CM CM CM CM
P«Ve
Il.ifi
i
I
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11